Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• jmog

  derek bomar;812981 wrote:what's getting cut first? would you be ok with some of your benefits being cut in order to slash spending? just curious.

  
  Absolutely. Next question?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  jmog;813477 wrote:Why not? That is exactly why most voted for Obama and Obama himself went after that vote. The "anyone but Bush" vote.

  
  And they were wrong.
  He said change, but stated specifics on how he would do it.
  I haven't heard specifics yet from these guys. Maybe they will eventually.
• Footwedge

  jmog;813477 wrote:Why not? That is exactly why most voted for Obama and Obama himself went after that vote. The "anyone but Bush" vote.

  Bush wasn't running last election. Obama was elected because most independents viewed McCain as a Bush clone on foreign policy. Independents decide all elections.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;813489 wrote:I haven't heard specifics yet from these guys. Maybe they will eventually.

  They're too busy trying NOT to say anything that might disqualify them. All but 2 or 3 aren't viable candidates and they know that fact quite well. Anything - and I mean anything - they say even remotely controversial will be attacked by the media...and then they'll be toast.
  
  The final 2 candidates will eventually lay out specifics and the winner will be the one who best withstands the guaranteed media scrutiny...the kind of scrutiny Obama should have received but never truly did.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Footwedge;813590 wrote:Bush wasn't running last election. Obama was elected because most independents viewed McCain as a Bush clone on foreign policy. Independents decide all elections.

  
  So, in point of fact, Bush was on the ballot in a lot of people's minds, which makes what jmog wrote correct.
• stlouiedipalma

  believer;813036 wrote:First cut: ObamaKare. Nuff said on that one.
  
  Then I'd tackle military spending. I would create a team of financial, military, and industrial experts to investigate and report on the waste, inefficiency, corruption, and competitive bidding issues within the military procurement process. The report would be presented to a bipartisan commission of senators and congressmen to draw up a bill that includes the relevant parts found in the team's report. Subsequent laws would be implemented to insure military procurement is done well within fair market value (including foreign bidders) and make it highly illegal to waste taxpayer dollars on patronage purchases designed to line the wallets of politicians and corporate execs.
  
  I'd withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya within the next year. I would phase-in a highly-trained, well-equipped Rapid Deployment Force style military team comprised of the best Marine, Army, Air Force, and Navy units and then conduct major downsizing of CONUS military units and bases. I would then withdraw all American military personnel from Europe and downsize our presence in Korea. We would stop funding NATO until all NATO countries contribute their fair share. We would make it known to the world that the United States will not seek UN, NATO, or allied approval when we feel the need to deploy American forces and that we will not hesitate to deploy small tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to quickly achieve military goals. Call me insane Ptown, but the nukes will be necessary to put teeth in our newly downsized yet lean and mean military structure.
  
  Next we would take the federal government out of the welfare business and will no longer subsidize state welfare programs. PERIOD
  
  We would then look long and hard at the waste, fraud, and abuse running rampant with the Medicare/Medicaid system. We would begin phasing out federal control of these programs and allow the participant to route Medicare/Medicaid dollars to a competitive privatized health insurance system over the next 2 or 3 decades.
  
  Finally, we would create a gradual phase out of Social Security over the next few decades by providing tax incentives to employees and employers to participate willingly in expanded and more lucrative private 401K-style savings programs. We would also make a federal law that makes it illegal for ****tard politicians to dip into the alleged "trust fund" to fund patronage projects for their home districts.

  
  believer, a lot of what you said makes perfect sense.You were doing good until the highlighted section. That, my friend, is a classic oxymoron. There is no such thing as a competitive privatized health insurance system. The present system is living proof of that. If that's your replacement for Obamacare, you need to go back to the drawing board.
  
  I like your proposals on just about everything else, but we either need to raise taxes along with spending cuts or we need to completely overhaul the tax system as we know it. Since that is as likely as me shitting gold, I would be in favor of modest tax hikes on the wealthiest 2%. The Bush-era tax cuts haven't done anything to spur job growth since they were instituted, so that argument doesn't hold water.
• believer

  

  stlouiedipalma;813765 wrote:I like your proposals on just about everything else, but we either need to raise taxes along with spending cuts or we need to completely overhaul the tax system as we know it. Since that is as likely as me shitting gold, I would be in favor of modest tax hikes on the wealthiest 2%. The Bush-era tax cuts haven't done anything to spur job growth since they were instituted, so that argument doesn't hold water.

  Once again I do not understand the mindset that we must penalize the rich for being rich. Easy targets I suppose. Like it or not - they control commerce. What do you think they'll do to make up for the lost revenue caused by your "modest tax hikes"? Let's see....reduce employment levels, conduct overseas "investments", etc. I dunno. I would if I were in their shoes.
  
  I've stated this before and I say it again, I'd be perfectly fine with a one-time modest TEMPORARY across-the-board tax increase provided (a) the additional tax revenues are guaranteed by law to go strictly to the national debt and (b) there are guaranteed across-the-board SPENDING CUTS.
• tk421

  

  47% pay no Federal income tax, why must the rich pay for everything in this country? If you want to raise more tax revenue, make the people using the most but paying the least pay more of their fair share. Pass constitutional amendment setting spending limits to the previous year's tax receipts. Immediately bring every single troop home from Iraq/Afghanistan and stop any and all involvement in Libya. Stop being the world police, charge other countries for our military service/protection. Time for those most loved liberal European countries to pay for their own safety instead of counting on the U.S.
  
  Increase wage limit for SS, increase retirement age to 70. Take SS out of general fund and make illegal to be touched by anyone for anything except paying SS. Go after rampant government waste and abuse, cut the size of the government by 10-20%, including the military. Downsize and consolidate federal agencies, no point in having 20+ different alphabet agencies all doing pretty much the same thing. Get rid of department of homeland security, get rid of or severely cut the TSA. Cut federal business taxes, bringing jobs back to the U.S. I can't understand how anyone thinks having a close to 40% tax on businesses is going to bring any jobs to this country when there are extremely cheaper options. Need to stop all pensions in this country, all new jobs should be required to have 401K only. States can no longer afford to pay these lucrative pensions for people retiring at the age of 50.
• stlouiedipalma

  believer;813789 wrote:Once again I do not understand the mindset that we must penalize the rich for being rich. Easy targets I suppose. Like it or not - they control commerce. What do you think they'll do to make up for the lost revenue caused by your "modest tax hikes"? Let's see....reduce employment levels, conduct overseas "investments", etc. I dunno. I would if I were in their shoes.
  
  I've stated this before and I say it again, I'd be perfectly fine with a one-time modest TEMPORARY across-the-board tax increase provided (a) the additional tax revenues are guaranteed by law to go strictly to the national debt and (b) there are guaranteed across-the-board SPENDING CUTS.

  Reduce employment levels? Sounds like an idle threat to me. Once more, so you will understand this, THE BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS DIDN'T CREATE ANY FUCKING JOBS. If you think they will suddenly do what they haven't done for the past 10 years you are living in Fantasyland.
  

  tk421;814023 wrote:47% pay no Federal income tax, why must the rich pay for everything in this country? If you want to raise more tax revenue, make the people using the most but paying the least pay more of their fair share. Pass constitutional amendment setting spending limits to the previous year's tax receipts. Immediately bring every single troop home from Iraq/Afghanistan and stop any and all involvement in Libya. Stop being the world police, charge other countries for our military service/protection. Time for those most loved liberal European countries to pay for their own safety instead of counting on the U.S.
  
  Increase wage limit for SS, increase retirement age to 70. Take SS out of general fund and make illegal to be touched by anyone for anything except paying SS. Go after rampant government waste and abuse, cut the size of the government by 10-20%, including the military. Downsize and consolidate federal agencies, no point in having 20+ different alphabet agencies all doing pretty much the same thing. Get rid of department of homeland security, get rid of or severely cut the TSA. Cut federal business taxes, bringing jobs back to the U.S. I can't understand how anyone thinks having a close to 40% tax on businesses is going to bring any jobs to this country when there are extremely cheaper options. Need to stop all pensions in this country, all new jobs should be required to have 401K only. States can no longer afford to pay these lucrative pensions for people retiring at the age of 50.

  
  
  You, like most of the other Tea Party conservatives out there, feel we must balance the budget on the shoulders of the working class and poor. I'm sure that, just like all those conservative Governors out there who refused the stimulus money, you will be the first one bitching when the Federal government isn't there to help you out when the tornado knocks your double-wide off its blocks.
• jmog

  ptown_trojans_1;813489 wrote:And they were wrong.
  He said change, but stated specifics on how he would do it.
  I haven't heard specifics yet from these guys. Maybe they will eventually.

  
  What specifics other than taxing the "rich", ending the war in Iraq, running a transparent administration, closing Guantanamo, and ending the Bush era tax cuts did Obama really lay out during the campaign? Nothing really but "hope and change". For the record he has done NONE of those campaign promises I listed. And I am glad he didn't get to most of them.
• jmog

  Footwedge;813590 wrote:Bush wasn't running last election. Obama was elected because most independents viewed McCain as a Bush clone on foreign policy. Independents decide all elections.

  
  Lets not try to act like the media and the Obama campaign did not portray McCain as a Bush clone and many idiots bought it when in the 2000 GOP primary their differences were so obvious even the blind media could see it. The media had its heart set on Obama and it did everything to convince those "independents" that McCain was McBush.
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;814077 wrote:Reduce employment levels? Sounds like an idle threat to me. Once more, so you will understand this, THE BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS DIDN'T CREATE ANY ****ING JOBS. If you think they will suddenly do what they haven't done for the past 10 years you are living in Fantasyland.
  

  
  
  Bush tax cuts started taking affect in 2002-2003.
  
  US income tax receipts (aka money the government gets from us)
  2003-~$800 billion(7% GDP)
  2008-~$1.2 trillion (8% GDP)
  
  Unemployment rate
  2003-~6.2%
  2007/8-~4.5%
  
  Keep drinking the Obama kool aid if you want.
• believer

  

  stlouiedipalma;814077 wrote:Reduce employment levels? Sounds like an idle threat to me. Once more, so you will understand this, THE BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS DIDN'T CREATE ANY FUCKING JOBS. If you think they will suddenly do what they haven't done for the past 10 years you are living in Fantasyland.

  
  
  I never addressed your Bush tax cut mantra in my original comments - NEVER - so I'm not sure where you are coming up with the Fantasyland nonsense.
  
  But since you insist, see Jmog's post above. In 2003 fed tax revenues were $800 billion and unemployment was at 6.2%. Under Bush's eeeeevil tax cuts, fed tax revenues were up to $1.2 trillion in 2007 and unemployment dropped to 4.5%. Fantasyland or truth? Why do you think Barry decided to allow the extension?
  
  Try to understand this.....the RICH - be they individuals or businesses - control commerce.
  
  They are in business to make money (IE: make eeeeeevil profits and earnings). When gubmint raises taxes on the rich, the rich simply seek tax shelters or take steps necessary to offset their lost earnings including reducing employee head counts, passing on the tax increases to the consumers in the form of price increases, shifting production to overseas locations with lower corporate tax rates, etc., etc.
  
  You lefties salivate over what the rich have and constantly seek ways to "level the playing field" through confiscatory tax policies (IE: socialism at its worst). You never stop to consider the consequences of those actions. You believe the rich will happily take it up the shorts while THEIR money is confiscated and redistributed amongst the poor poor Amerikan paupers, lepers, and downtrodden. Problem solved, right? A little secret for ya...You can "tax the rich" until they have ZERO income left and it wouldn't even put a serious dent in our national debt problem.
  
  When gubmint gets OUT OF THE WAY the eeeeevil rich are far more likely to loosen their purse strings, spend their money, and create jobs. They don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts obviously. They do it to make more p-p-p-p-profits.
  
  But at least some of the paupers, lepers, and downtrodden eventually benefit through the creation of more employment. The gubmint's tax revenues actually INCREASE because more people are paying in to the system, less people are leeching off the system, etc. (see Jmog's post above).
  
  When more people are working, they are also spending money and paying sales, state, and local taxes. And when they are paying IN to sales, state, and local tax coffers we don't hear quite as much about local municipalities and school districts in financial crisis due to budget shortfalls.
  
  Cutting taxes may make you Big Government disciples cringe, but BIG GUBMINT SPENDING is certainly not the way to economic salvation either. If it were, BHO's $800 Billion Porkulus Spending would have dropped unemployment far below the 10% level we currently enjoy.
  
  We MUST cut spending NOW and stick to it. Once that happens, then let's talk about fair across-the-board tax increases.
  
  Why is this so difficult to understand?
• believer

  

  jmog;814080 wrote:Lets not try to act like the media and the Obama campaign did not portray McCain as a Bush clone and many idiots bought it when in the 2000 GOP primary their differences were so obvious even the blind media could see it. The media had its heart set on Obama and it did everything to convince those "independents" that McCain was McBush.

  This time around the Obama-loving media will make the final Republican candidate look like the Evil One....the guy (or gal) who wants to take medicine away from poor babies, starve the elderly, kill trees, and make teachers oversee 75 kids per public school classroom.
  
  They'll attempt to make their Anointed One look squeaky clean. They claim that while the economy is "on the mend" we need to give Barrry even more time to mop up Bush's mess. That's right...the tried and true "It's Bush's Fault" will be pulled out of mothballs.
  
  When they figure out that nobody is buying off on that mantra anymore, they'll - as a last resort - go to the leftist playbook and play the race trump card. "White America simply doesn't want a black man in the White House."
  
  Count on it.
• tk421

  

  stlouiedipalma;814077 wrote:Reduce employment levels? Sounds like an idle threat to me. Once more, so you will understand this, THE BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS DIDN'T CREATE ANY FUCKING JOBS. If you think they will suddenly do what they haven't done for the past 10 years you are living in Fantasyland.
  
  
  
  You, like most of the other Tea Party conservatives out there, feel we must balance the budget on the shoulders of the working class and poor. I'm sure that, just like all those conservative Governors out there who refused the stimulus money, you will be the first one bitching when the Federal government isn't there to help you out when the tornado knocks your double-wide off its blocks.

  
  
  I like that. The mark of the left, when you can't argue the facts call the other side names. Shows how mature the liberals in this country really are. Did I say anything untrue? Is it not a fact that almost half of our country pay no FEDERAL income tax and/or receive more back than what they paid? Why should the top 2% of society subsidize the rest of the country? What will the left do when the evil rich decide enough is enough and pack their shit and move? Unlike most, the evil rich have that luxury. Keep biting the hand that feeds this country and they will eventually get sick of it, just like most businesses that now move offshore.
• stlouiedipalma

  Sorry I called you a "Tea Party conservative". I'd be highly pissed myself if anyone resorted to calling me that.
  
  I'd sure like to know how to get back more than I paid. I have good tax preparers, but even they haven't been able to do that for me yet. Maybe I have to be in that top 2% to find that loophole.
• stlouiedipalma

  believer;814112 wrote:This time around the Obama-loving media will make the final Republican candidate look like the Evil One....the guy (or gal) who wants to take medicine away from poor babies, starve the elderly, kill trees, and make teachers oversee 75 kids per public school classroom.
  
  They'll attempt to make their Anointed One look squeaky clean. They claim that while the economy is "on the mend" we need to give Barrry even more time to mop up Bush's mess. That's right...the tried and true "It's Bush's Fault" will be pulled out of mothballs.
  
  When they figure out that nobody is buying off on that mantra anymore, they'll - as a last resort - go to the leftist playbook and play the race trump card. "White America simply doesn't want a black man in the White House."
  
  Count on it.

  
  You're correct on all counts, believer. The upcoming election will prove to be very dirty indeed.
  
  I can see it now: "The Republicans f***ed things up the last time they were in control, now they want a chance to finish the job".
  
  God, I'd give almost anything for Palin to win the nomination. Busting her chops would almost be like shooting fish in a barrel. Now I know how you all felt about Hillary running. Obama stole your chance for some good campaign slogans.
• tk421

  

  stlouiedipalma;814568 wrote:Sorry I called you a "Tea Party conservative". I'd be highly pissed myself if anyone resorted to calling me that.
  
  I'd sure like to know how to get back more than I paid. I have good tax preparers, but even they haven't been able to do that for me yet. Maybe I have to be in that top 2% to find that loophole.

  
  You honestly are going to plead ignorance that a huge percentage of the population gets back more in credit than they paid in taxes? Earned income credits don't ring a bell? Get a couple of kids and you are easily getting 5K+ back in credits from the federal government. So, half the population don't pay toward anything that the feds do (income tax), not to mention the credits they get back. It's amazing that we've gotten to this point in this country.
• majorspark

  

  stlouiedipalma;814568 wrote:I'd sure like to know how to get back more than I paid. I have good tax preparers, but even they haven't been able to do that for me yet. Maybe I have to be in that top 2% to find that loophole.

  I do my own taxes. I also have done the taxes of close friends and family members. I do it free of charge because I have a close relationship with them. None of them are "rich". Rest assured no one in the top 2% of income earners gets paid back more than they owe, at least not legally. Do they find loopholes to legally reduce the amount of taxes they owe, yes.
  
  Case in point on someones taxes I have done:
  
  Married filing jointly. 3 dependent children. Owns their own home. Slightly above average median income middle class American family.
  
  Adjusted Gross Income: $53,497
  
  Itemized Deductions (Schedule A): $12,214
  *This includes mortgage interest deduction, State and Local taxes, and donations to charity (in this case just a few hundred because of family obligations).
  
  Owed Income Tax: $2,616
  
  Child Tax Credit: $3,000
  
  Income Tax Owed: $0
  
  Now move on to the "Payment" section on the Federal 1040.
  
  Making Work Pay Credit (Taxpayer + Spouse): $800
  
  Additional Child Tax Credit: $384
  *The negative amount between your child tax credit and your owed tax ($2,616-$3,000).
  
  Federal payout in this case $1,184 + the individuals federal income withholdings.
  
  Lower the income level and the Earned Income Tax Credit can heap even more on the payout. Extra kids the same.
  
  Now you know how to do it.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  stlouiedipalma;814568 wrote:Sorry I called you a "Tea Party conservative". I'd be highly pissed myself if anyone resorted to calling me that.
  
  I'd sure like to know how to get back more than I paid. I have good tax preparers, but even they haven't been able to do that for me yet. Maybe I have to be in that top 2% to find that loophole.

  
  You can't be this ignorant, with child tax credits and the EITC many Americans MAKE money off of their tax returns, look up negative tax liability on google and educate yourself.
• QuakerOats

  stlouiedipalma;814568 wrote:Sorry I called you a "Tea Party conservative". I'd be highly pissed myself if anyone resorted to calling me that.

  Not me. I am happy to be aligned with all those defenders of liberty and advocates for fiscal sanity. Hard to understand the twisted liberal mind that denigrates such patriots.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Eh, Louie only sees women who know how to handle guns and field dress a deer -- and I think it scares the crap out of him. That's why he calls them crazy and worse names.
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;814568 wrote:Sorry I called you a "Tea Party conservative". I'd be highly pissed myself if anyone resorted to calling me that.
  
  I'd sure like to know how to get back more than I paid. I have good tax preparers, but even they haven't been able to do that for me yet. Maybe I have to be in that top 2% to find that loophole.

  
  You just showed that you really don't know how the tax code works, even a basic understanding. It is NOT the rich who get back more than they paid it.
  
  The lowest few income brackets not only get back every dime they pay in federal taxes throughout the year, but they also, with tax CREDITS can easily get back much more than they paid in at tax refund time. Trust me, when I was a poor married college student with a kid, I most definitely got more back than I paid in.
  
  
  Show even some basic knowledge of the system before calling other people out.
• queencitybuckeye

  jmog;815267 wrote: The lowest few income brackets not only get back every dime they pay in federal taxes throughout the year, but they also, with tax CREDITS can easily get back much more than they paid in at tax refund time.

  
  And unfortunately, one of the few things in Economics that is an absolute is that anything that is subsidized, you get more of.
• fish82

  

  Begging for money on camera from the Oval Office was a nice touch.