Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• gut

  I Wear Pants;838612 wrote:I think you mean...
  
  Shoot. Them. All.

  Nice to have company on the govt watch list!
• believer

  

  derek bomar;838174 wrote:if anyone is watching what Obama is saying right now, how can you not honestly agree with him? My fiance, who works in Republican State government just said "he's going to be fucking championed...this was his best speech ever. It was simple, and clear to understand."
  you may not like him, but Jesus he literally is offering to Republicans what they want, and they still won't budge. This is getting fucking retarded.

  LMAO The teleprompter Prez is good at obfuscation over matters for which he, himself, has no answers. His own party had near Super Majority status and couldn't put together a budget or plan to get the country out of debt but the Bammer now has the audacity of slamming the Repubs (at least the House Repubs) for "not budging." Laughable.
  
  He "forgets" that the 2010 election was a mandate by the voters for real action to get our nation's finances in order, not his empty pussified Hope & Change fluff.
  
  If Obama wants to win re-election he needs to tell his own party to STFU and have the courage to try the Republican plan. At least the Repubs put a plan on the table.
• derek bomar

  

  believer;838663 wrote:LMAO The teleprompter Prez is good at obfuscation over matters for which he, himself, has no answers. His own party had near Super Majority status and couldn't put together a budget or plan to get the country out of debt but the Bammer now has the audacity of slamming the Repubs (at least the House Repubs) for "not budging." Laughable.
  
  He "forgets" that the 2010 election was a mandate by the voters for real action to get our nation's finances in order, not his empty pussified Hope & Change fluff.
  
  If Obama wants to win re-election he needs to tell his own party to STFU and have the courage to try the Republican plan. At least the Repubs put a plan on the table.

  
  Im just telling you the truth - he appears like the adult in the room.
• believer

  

  derek bomar;838672 wrote:Im just telling you the truth - he appears like the adult in the room.

  Appearances are deceiving. It's been almost 3 years now. Haven't you figured that out yet?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Perhaps your fiance needs to stop being so naive -- and you, too, apparently.
  
  What SPECIFIC DETAILS of Obama's plan have been put in writing to show exactly how the US is going to reduce the deficit in both the short and long term; and what exactly are the assurances that those cuts will happen by future members of Congress? Last I heard, many of the cuts he's talking about are more about less spending than actual cuts, and there's no guarantee they'll even happen.
  
  Is there something new out there, or is Obama just trying to sweet talk his way out of actually having to address this problem?
• Con_Alma

  It's very telling that the President has demanded the Republican leadership come and tell him how their plan will not put us into default while his party has not delivered such a plan in years.
• Con_Alma

  derek bomar;838672 wrote:Im just telling you the truth - he appears like the adult in the room.

  
  
  As an adult leading his party and this nation you would think the definition of adulthood would require an economic budget or plan.
• believer

  

  Con_Alma;838827 wrote:As an adult leading his party and this nation you would think the definition of adulthood would require an economic budget or plan.

  You would think that but then again, the clowns in DC don't behave a whole lot like adults in "fly-over country."
• gut

  believer;838663 wrote:the audacity of slamming the Repubs (at least the House Repubs) for "not budging."

  
  +$4 trillion in debt in 2.5 years, and their plan to "cut" $3.7 trillion (?) OVER TEN YEARS is somehow unreasonable and not budging?
  
  The in-fighting over reducing the debt to merely 2008 levels is amazing (and it's actually more, since we'll continue running deficits for years). IMO, anything less than a plan that reduces total debt to $10 trillion by 2020 is insufficient. And it might take another 20 years to pay that remaining $10 trillion responsibly.
• Con_Alma

  The reported breakdown wasn't over the amount of debt reduction but rather revenue increases through taxes.
  
  Any planned effort, in all honesty, is irrelevant if we don't force future congresses to follow the plan. I have ardently been opposed to a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Unfortunately I think it's time.
• gut

  Con_Alma;838896 wrote:The reported breakdown wasn't over the amount of debt reduction but rather revenue increases through taxes.

  
  I think the idea to remove loopholes and lower marginal rates is very interesting. This could generate a lot of revenue by being more efficient. The lower loopholes will generate some revenue, but the rich have nearly limitless (and perfectly legal and simply good tax management) ways to shift income to their lowest tax liability But when you lower rates, the effort and, in some cases, cost of those maneuvers make it less worthwhile so you end-up with a much higher taxable base.
  
  The rich get the bulk of their income, for the most part, from capital gains. So all this debate over marginal rates is really just a futile struggle to push the needle a hair to the left or right (no pun intended). I'd love to see research showing capital gains at 15% leads to significantly more investment than 20% (or possibly even 25%). The indirect effect is probably less subtle, whereby lower capital gains reduces the cost of capital so corporations are able to get cheaper capital, which would be a positive for growth. 25% is probably too much, but I think 20% makes sense especially give the historically low interest rate environment.
• Con_Alma

  gut;838920 wrote:I think the idea to remove loopholes and lower marginal rates is very interesting. This could generate a lot of revenue by being more efficient.....

  There were some agreement to revenue increases according to reports. It was the change in that previous agreement amount that was the issue causing the breakdown.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  gut;838920 wrote:I think the idea to remove loopholes and lower marginal rates is very interesting. This could generate a lot of revenue by being more efficient. The lower loopholes will generate some revenue, but the rich have nearly limitless (and perfectly legal and simply good tax management) ways to shift income to their lowest tax liability But when you lower rates, the effort and, in some cases, cost of those maneuvers make it less worthwhile so you end-up with a much higher taxable base.
  
  The rich get the bulk of their income, for the most part, from capital gains. So all this debate over marginal rates is really just a futile struggle to push the needle a hair to the left or right (no pun intended). I'd love to see research showing capital gains at 15% leads to significantly more investment than 20% (or possibly even 25%). The indirect effect is probably less subtle, whereby lower capital gains reduces the cost of capital so corporations are able to get cheaper capital, which would be a positive for growth. 25% is probably too much, but I think 20% makes sense especially give the historically low interest rate environment.

  
  If they're going to do away with "loopholes" like mortgage interest deductions and deductions for medical expenses and charitable giving, they better damn well lower the overall rates SIGNIFICANTLY to make it worthwhile for most of us who rely heavily on those deductions to reduce our tax liability.
  
  I'd have to see some actual numbers before I'd back a plan like that.
• gut

  Writerbuckeye;839213 wrote:If they're going to do away with "loopholes" like mortgage interest deductions and deductions for medical expenses and charitable giving, they better damn well lower the overall rates SIGNIFICANTLY to make it worthwhile for most of us who rely heavily on those deductions to reduce our tax liability.
  
  I'd have to see some actual numbers before I'd back a plan like that.

  
  Oh gracious no. The mortgage interest deduction would be catastrophically stupid to eliminate, at least on anything below 400k in principle. If you eliminate that, I think it might be tough for most people even to have enough deductions to itemize. Medical expenses are safe, too, because of all the retirees. I'm referring to various corporate and other specialized loopholes.
  
  And, I'm sorry, but nobody should be getting cut a check by the govt if they don't have any tax liability. Taking away the mortgage deduction, regardless of any other offsets, would simply destroy another 20-30% of home values, at least theoretically but in practice that may not be the case if it's offset elsewhere. Otherwise, eliminating that and other deductions and increasing the standard deduction might be nice (especially for those who rent!), so long as it doesn't involve checks to negative liability folks.
  
  As far as corporate, it scares me when economically ignorant people in Washington run around waving tax hikes for companies like some magic bullet. There are loopholes, and then there are things like interest deductions, loss carry forwards and depreciation that just as much as being bad for corporate investment, could send bad shockwaves through the markets. Recoveries have normally been closely linked with performance of the market, and any tax policy that might destroy market values (on average, I thnk we can handle winners and losers) would be horrible for the larger economy.
• believer

  

  gut;839288 wrote:As far as corporate, it scares me when economically ignorant people in Washington run around waving tax hikes for companies like some magic bullet. There are loopholes, and then there are things like interest deductions, loss carry forwards and depreciation that just as much as being bad for corporate investment, could send bad shockwaves through the markets. Recoveries have normally been closely linked with performance of the market, and any tax policy that might destroy market values (on average, I thnk we can handle winners and losers) would be horrible for the larger economy.

  Agreed. The insane thing is these stupid fiscal policies were developed over decades by moronic, no-nothing politicians and now we're expecting the most recent crop of twits to right the ship. Scary indeed.
• coyotes22

  

  Obama Cancels Appearance at Fundraisers as Debt Crisis Remains Unresolved
  
  [LEFT]
  [/LEFT]
• QuakerOats

  obama disapproval at record high.
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
• coyotes22

  

  So, by Ty's logic, he is unelectable? Amirite?
• gut

  coyotes22;840650 wrote:Obama Cancels Appearance at Fundraisers as Debt Crisis Remains Unresolved
  
  [LEFT]
  [/LEFT]

  good for him. Something I agree with for once. But for the life of me, I don't know why any sitting POTUS needs to campaign instead of running on their record, or any incumbent politician for that matter. Ridiculous, we elect these people to get stuff done and they end-up spending 30-50% of their time campaigning for re-election.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  If you had Obama's record, you'd be campaigning your ass off, too.
• gut

  Writerbuckeye;840799 wrote:If you had Obama's record, you'd be campaigning your ass off, too.

  It's not like he ever really stopped. It's almost like campaigning is the only thing he's good at....Almost? Who am I kidding, right?
• QuakerOats

  gut;840806 wrote:It's not like he ever really stopped. It's almost like campaigning is the only thing he's good at....Almost? Who am I kidding, right?

  
  Yes, he is also highly adept at reading a teleprompter, and appointing marxists and communists to government agencies.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=288657
• derek bomar

  

  QuakerOats;840815 wrote:Yes, he is also highly adept at reading a teleprompter, and appointing marxists and communists to government agencies.

  
  got any proof McCarthy?
• coyotes22

  

  Soros to drop hedge fund:
  
  http://www.thestreet.com/story/11198058/1/soros-returns-capital-avoids-dodd-frank.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN
  
  Why? Maybe so he does not have to disclose investment info?