4 more years?

[David-]

Come on Madre, whats going on? If you slack and let a tea bagger in, I'll never forgive any of you.

[psychoDiablo]

lol. what happened?

[David-]

I just thought there'd be a bit of Obama praise on here, election stuff has started right? I mean like the talking and the press bullshit at least? I dont really understand it tbh its a circus to me.

Instead we have right wing ramblings from Funk ! A sign of the times??

edit: oh and 4 more years of David- of course, just realised I've been on here 4 years this month lol

[psychoDiablo]

funks done for now. he's posted all his links for the month. finished earlier than he thought.

[Kortenie]

Originally Said by psychoDiablo

funks done for now. he's posted all his links for the month. finished earlier than he thought.

And only the 6th. So we're safe from his "well though out" debate rants until November first.... eeeeexcellent.

[Thoughtcrime]

I've been exhaustively involved in politics. Like, to the point of saturation. Tirelessly, endlessly reading and listening to NPR and fighting with people on Facebook.

[Blackass]

Madre's not posting because Obama sucks and she knows it. (Bet this will bait her, though!)

[Jenn and tonic]

Originally Said by Blackass

Obama sucks.

"He's just so broken down by Washington that there's nothing he CAN do. It's those meanie Republicans. Let's give him four more years to make it right!"

[David-]

So who is most likely to be Republican Candidate?

This list look accurate? http://whatsnews.hubpages.com/hub/20...can-Candidates

#8 lol :D

[Blackass]

It's way too early to pick. At this time 4 years ago Fred Thomson was near the top. Ask again in February :P

[SketchImpressions]

fuck the two party system. as long as the system is bought and sold like this i dont care to participate at all. whats the point in ellecting a good pres who cant do shit in a broken system? instead of voting for a new pupett i say take the machine apart and examine the parts this time around. lets fucking update the system already!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...p.jsp?key=4898

[psychoDiablo]

Originally Said by SketchImpressions

fuck the two party system. as long as the system is bought and sold like this i dont care to participate at all. whats the point in ellecting a good pres who cant do shit in a broken system? instead of voting for a new pupett i say take the machine apart and examine the parts this time around. lets fucking update the system already!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...p.jsp?key=4898

good point. lets rebel to have it torn down. we'll start a whole new system. then we can start human sacrificing

[Zanahoria_Picante]

Originally Said by SketchImpressions

fuck the two party system. as long as the system is bought and sold like this i dont care to participate at all. whats the point in ellecting a good pres who cant do shit in a broken system? instead of voting for a new pupett i say take the machine apart and examine the parts this time around. lets fucking update the system already!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...p.jsp?key=4898

"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order. And everything becomes... CHAOS-UH."

Seriously, though, how would you propose to "update" the system?

[psychoDiablo]

Originally Said by Zanahoria_Picante

Seriously, though, how would you propose to "update" the system?

I would think you have to kill some people first. Like get rid of them somehow. Then just say what you want, and anyone who goes against that suffers the consequences. just start establishing shit lol

[SketchImpressions]

Originally Said by Zanahoria_Picante

"Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order. And everything becomes... CHAOS-UH."

Seriously, though, how would you propose to "update" the system?

myself?

I would first eliminate corporations having the ability to fund ellection campagines. Or Lobby as agressivly in congress. Or give jobs to congressmen after their term as incentives to pass laws in favor of that company. I would eliminate the two party system and all the bullshit rules they have established to make it harder to get on the ballot. I would deffinatly not allow a corporation more than 50% of the vote count( as it stands right now ES&S controls almost all the electronic votes, they are a data processing company who gets major gov $)

i would probly make some other changes but like PD says, someone would get hurt.

[SketchImpressions]

[Thoughtcrime]

Originally Said by Jenn and tonic

"He's just so broken down by Washington that there's nothing he CAN do. It's those meanie Republicans. Let's give him four more years to make it right!"

Well, honestly, yeah.

Our country was set up to be governed by a legislative body, with an executive branch added as an afterthought. The president can veto and propose bills, but he doesn't really have the power to MAKE SHIT HAPPEN without the approval of the congress. And the Republicans have been prrrrretty upfront about wanting him out at all costs. ALL costs. Take a look at what happened with the jobs bill. All costs.

Actually, you know what? It didn't cost them anything to vote against the bill. Those who voted against it, did so out of self-interest. Over half of Congress is a millionaire, after all. Not just Republicans being the culprits, here. Democrats, too.

[Jenn and tonic]

The jobs bill was so bad, Democrats had to table it for a bit and then figure out what they could do with it, even they couldn't pass it; you're forgetting that the Senate is still Democrat controlled. His proposals were a rehash of the 2009 stimulus, which didn't create any jobs AT ALL. Obama even said after the stimulus that the jobs he had been expecting to be shovel ready weren't...and they still aren't there. Nothing has changed since the 2009 stimulus except people are far less optimistic. And his proposal shows he doesn't give a crap about anything but being reelected.

He knew before crafting the jobs bill that Republicans wouldn't vote for tax increases, because they've been very clear on that. Several Democrats have said so too. If he would have actually worked with people in Washington before he proposed it, he might have had a good chance of passing it...as it was, he didn't even work with Democrats in his proposal. They're having to break it up and see if they can pass pieces of it, never mind the Republican votes.

Even the guy who said the jobs bill (he's been a cheerleader for the administration) is saying 'wait...' after actually reading the bill. (read the following).

Private analysts are also saying the jobs bill won't make much of a dent in unemployment rate at all, much less the millions of jobs this guy predicts.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D9PV15JO1.htm

Since then, Obama has said he would pay for his $447 billion package with permanent income tax increases of about $150 billion a year, mostly on wealthy individuals and corporations, in addition to spending cuts. That's drawn criticism from Republicans, who say any tax increases could further stall the fragile recovery.

Zandi, who has advised both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said he's still sticking with his forecast, mainly because the stimulus in the plan, including a temporary reduction in Social Security taxes for both employees and employers and infrastructure spending, would come in 2012 and be paid for later.

But there is one feature Obama doesn't emphasize.

Zandi said his job-creation figure only applies to 2012.

"Beginning in 2013, and certainly into 2014, the plan is a drag on the economy because the stimulus starts fading away," he said. "So by 2015, the economy is in the same place as now, as if there were no jobs package."

Also, Zandi said, his forecast does not leave any room for a new recession. If that happens, all bets are off.

"So it's very important to get as many people working as fast as possible," he said. "If we go back into recession, it is going to be very difficult to get out. And it's going to cost taxpayers tremendously."

Job creation has ground to a virtual standstill. The economy produced a scant 20,000 net new jobs in June, 85,000 in July and none in August. Economic output, as measured by the GDP, has been growing this year at an anemic annual rate below 1 percent.

The global economy is showing no signs of strengthening. A divided Federal Reserve is nearly out of ammunition for additional stimulus. And the U.S. is once again facing the possibility of a government shutdown at the end of next week.

Obama promoted his package anew in his Saturday radio and internet address, saying the mix of tax cuts and direct spending would put tens of thousands of teachers back to work and modernize at least 35,000 schools. He again called on lawmakers to pass the bill "right now."

The Obama-Zandi target of 1.9 million new jobs next year, or 158,000 a month, is somewhat higher than private analyses that suggest the plan would create 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month.

Heidi Shierholz, economist for the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute, calculates it would take job growth of 400,000 every month for three years in a row to get back to the 5 percent jobless rate last seen in December 2007, at the recession's outset.

That prediction of his sounds eerily familiar...kinda like what actually happened in 2009, except unemployment went up, even though they kept saying if the stimulus would pass, unemployment would go down.

Look, I agree that Washington hasn't done much because they don't give a shit about Americans, but to act like Obama cares is patently ridiculous. He's only interested in getting reelected, hence this populist bill that he hopes people get fired up about. For the most part, it's kinda fallen flat.

AP article about Obama campaigning, not governing (and some bits about Republicans too...both parties are idiots):

http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/e109e277...fc3d5db23fd543

Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama's proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president's proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.

The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president's powers of persuading the public heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans' ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.

"He knows it's not going to pass. He's betting that voters won't pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the 'do-nothing Congress,'" said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development.

John Sides, political science professor at George Washington University, said Obama's approach on the jobs bill is "more about campaigning than governing."

"He's mostly just going around talking about this and drawing contrasts with what the Republicans want and what he wants and not really trying to work these legislative levers he might be able to use to get this passed," Sides said. "That just suggests to me that he is ready to use a failed jobs bill as a campaign message against the Republicans."

The president's opponents aren't exactly laying it all out, either.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to force a vote on the bill last week, innocently claiming that the president was entitled to one. McConnell knew full well that the result would be failure for the legislation and an embarrassment for Obama.

House Speaker John Boehner, meanwhile, claimed that Obama has "given up on the country and decided to campaign full-time" instead of seeking common ground with the GOP. But Boehner neglected to mention that Obama's past attempts at compromise with Republicans often yielded scant results, as Obama himself pointed out.

[Thoughtcrime]

Right - it's not a permanent solution. It's a stimulus to keep us from sliding back into recession, by reforming tax codes. You don't think the rich should be taxed more than they're being taxed now?

[Jenn and tonic]

Originally Said by Thoughtcrime

Right - it's not a permanent solution. It's a stimulus to keep us from sliding back into recession, by reforming tax codes. You don't think the rich should be taxed more than they're being taxed now?

The last time they tried a stimulus, it didn't work...remember 2009? That's the point I'm making. Employment didn't go down, it went up underneath the last stimulus, and there is no indication that this stimulus wouldn't do the same. Temporary fills in holes don't work.

From an AP article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592106....TqDZ87KNNBl):

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.


.....


Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

If you look at the last bolded section, what Obama is talking about when he says that rich people aren't paying as much as a middle income worker are the tax deductions and loopholes that richer investors get; these deductions and loopholes are something that Republicans and Democrats both agree, and in both of their plans they want to see these deductions go away; however, what Obama proposed was straight-up tax increases in his plan, which HE KNEW Republicans would not agree to.


A reform of the tax code wouldn't do much, nor would taxing the rich more. In theory, I agree, millionaires aren't going to miss that money at all. However, we are in a HUGE debt crisis. Even if we increased the taxes past pre-Clinton levels, the extra revenues would barely be a drop in the bucket,and certainly not enough to benefit anyone. Government also spends too much to offset every tax they raise, which is exactly what Obama's plan does. This kind of environment only makes job creators more nervous because they don't know what kind of job environment to expect, especially with ObamaCare and more employer expenses expected soon because of the mandate. Thus, they'll continue not hiring, as they've done for the last couple of years.

Raising taxes on individuals and families making $200,000 has more of an effect than you think it might. My uncle's architecture firm would be subject to this; they build for businesses that make over that amount, and they have already had to decrease the firm from 70 to 50 employees because people are not building as much as they would in a healthy economy (they have designed a lot of buildings for municipalities in the last few years, not so much in private businesses), and this has been for an extended period; when the tax increases go into effect, many businesses will have to tighten their belts further because of higher taxes AND the health care mandates for their employees, which would mean my uncle would have to respond in his firm as well, decreasing the work force even more. This kind of effect is why the democrats had to rewrite the bill and initially felt no urgency in passing the jobs bill; as I stated, it was a bad bill. Still is, as there's no real way to pay for everything they're calling for.

Raising corporate taxes also pushes more jobs overseas. I read a report where more companies are moving to Canada because Canada is lowering their corporate tax rates to attract more businesses. This is also why more companies are taking their production overseas; it's cheaper. So, less jobs are available here as we raise corporate tax rates.

The taxes is also supposed to be enacted in 2013--which hinges on the idea that we'll have a completely healthy economy then...based on little to no fact. A little late to fund this "urgent" jobs bill, no? Where's the money going to come from until then? Oh, right...the regular tax payer. Sounds familiar...kinda like 2009?

As Obama himself stated:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE

"His economics are right---you don't raise taxes during a recession."