Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • majorspark
    All this hocus pocus in the tax code. We tax cigarettes to discourage their use? We justify it because it could cause lung cancer. The costs of treating that cancer is a burden on those Americans choosing to live "healthy". The fact is we are all going to die. Most of us will end up being a burden to the health care system at some point. If one smokes a pack a day and gets lung cancer at age 55. We pay to treat his cancer and he dies at age 57. On the other hand we have an individual who lived a government approved "healthy" lifestyle. Old age catches up with him and we take care of him through medicare for 10, 15, or maybe 20yrs. A heart bypass will buy you a good 15yrs. Another 15 yrs of social security payments. Medicare paid check ups. Eventually at some point your body will break down and you will get sick and taxpayers will treat your illness. Then you croak.

    It would seem to me that the pack a day smoker that croaked at 55 might just have save the taxpayers some dough.
  • gut
    majorspark;932982 wrote: It would seem to me that the pack a day smoker that croaked at 55 might just have save the taxpayers some dough.
    I've seen a few studies showing that. Not sure about the medical savings, but the big nut you're missing is the savings to SS. When you factor that in, I believe the taxpayer comes out ahead.
  • I Wear Pants
    BGFalcons82;932976 wrote:Nope. If their intent was to discourage use, then raise taxes to $10/pack. Or make them illegal. Not gonna happen now is it?

    Cig taxes have been a backbone of liberal theology because people have a natural inclination to agree that smoking is rotten and people whom engage in smoking should be paying for their vice. Shame on them and hand over the cash damnit. It's an easy sell for politicians to go after vice-aholics to tax them more. Ditto for alcohol. Someday, mary-jane will enter the fray when they figure out how to regulate it and test for it on the highways. It's only a matter of time.
    There is nothing to figure out. The solution for that sort of thing is beyond simple.
  • QuakerOats
    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/13/new-obama-metric-jobs-supported/

    Getting downright humorous ............

    Change we can believe in .....
  • gut
    "Preventing layoffs" might as well be code for preventing the economy from making healthy adjustments for the long-run. One could argue the "Great Recession" was an unwinding of stresses that never fully worked themselves out over prior recessions and built to a breaking point. A core tenet of capitalism is recessions are how economies mete out inefficiencies and free-up resources for more productive use. "Job support" is a politicized term for propping-up failing and inefficient industries. I'm oversimplifying, but such govt intervention ultimately hinders positive economic transformation that would make us stronger for the future.
  • QuakerOats
    ^^^ :thumbup:
  • BGFalcons82
    gut;933247 wrote:"Preventing layoffs" might as well be code for preventing the economy from making healthy adjustments for the long-run. One could argue the "Great Recession" was an unwinding of stresses that never fully worked themselves out over prior recessions and built to a breaking point. A core tenet of capitalism is recessions are how economies mete out inefficiencies and free-up resources for more productive use. "Job support" is a politicized term for propping-up failing and inefficient industries. I'm oversimplifying, but such govt intervention ultimately hinders positive economic transformation that would make us stronger for the future.
    I think you simplified it just fine. The problem with capitalism is that from time to time there are corrections (recessions) to weed out the system. Similar to a garden that gets overgrown, it needs thinned in order for the garden as a whole to survive. Americans have been trained to no longer tolerate the necessary corrections and many look for the government to step in to make everyone safe and secure from the economic environment.

    If we have no pain from poor decisions, we never learn. If we never fail, we never learn from mistakes. If we mask the symptoms, ignore the mistakes and expand the problems, we all fail.
  • jhay78
    Joe Biden makes a fool of himself again, which basically means he opened his mouth again:

    http://www.therightscoop.com/biden-wishes-opponents-of-jobs-bill-knew-what-it-was-liked-to-be-robbed-at-gunpoint-or-raped/

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46983
    Vice President Joe Biden now says he didn’t make a reference to rape, and got testy with HUMAN EVENTS when we asked if he would like to retract his comments that the number of sexual assaults would increase if Republicans don’t sign on to Barack Obama’s latest “jobs” proposal.

    “I didn’t use, no no no…Let’s get it straight, guy. Don’t screw around with me,” Biden lashed out at HUMAN EVENTS. Then Biden confirmed that he indeed did talk about rape in terms of the President’s spending measure. “Murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise,” if the Democrats agenda isn’t passed, he added.

    It was on Tuesday during a speech at the University of Pennsylvania where Biden initially argued that another round of government spending was needed to prevent sexual assaults. “It’s not temporary [administration’s proposed stimulus] when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape. It’s not temporary to that woman.” Then in the same speech he wished Republicans were themselves rape victims. “I wish they had some notion of what it was like to be on the other side of a gun, or [to have] a 200-pound man standing over you, telling you to submit.”
    Biden’s demagogic language aside, police budgets are the responsibility of each individual state, not federal bureaucrats. And as Ed Morrissey at HotAir notes, the President’s “jobs” bill doesn’t go directly to hire police officers anyway. Instead, “it allows states to paper-over budget gaps for another year rather than address their systemic budgetary issues, and protect unionized bureaucrats whose jobs should be on the chopping block.”

    The exchange between the vice president and HUMAN EVENTS was taken on Wednesday after Biden gave a speech calling for yet another government stimulus program. This one is union-backed, and aimed at getting teachers and public-sector employees back to work.
    What a disgrace.
  • I Wear Pants
    See, I understood what he meant the first time it was said and defended it because while poorly worded, it made sense.

    Now that he has "clarified" I really wish he wouldn't have. That's one of the dumber things you can say as a VP.
  • QuakerOats
    http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/10/cardoza-to-anno.php

    Dem's ripping obama on their way out the door. Maybe the wrong guy is heading out the door ??
  • wkfan
    I Wear Pants;939700 wrote:See, I understood what he meant the first time it was said and defended it because while poorly worded, it made sense.

    Now that he has "clarified" I really wish he wouldn't have. That's one of the dumber things you can say as a VP.
    ....and people really wanted this guy one heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world??
  • I Wear Pants
    Not related to Obama but I don't want to start it's own thread. So here goes: http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/224139/louisiana-outlaws-selling-used-goods-for-cash/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GameProNews+%28GamePro.com+Daily+News%29

    Who in the hell thought that was a good idea?

    "A secondhand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or secondhand property. Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or secondhand property."

    So used game stores, Goodwill, Salvation Army, Antique Stores, etc can't accept cash for payment. Is that even legal to do? What happened to "for all debts public and private"?
  • QuakerOats
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875


    Change we can believe in ...
  • believer
    I Wear Pants;939943 wrote:So used game stores, Goodwill, Salvation Army, Antique Stores, etc can't accept cash for payment. Is that even legal to do? What happened to "for all debts public and private"?


    In all seriousness it's easier to track stolen goods through checks and electronic transactions than cash. Apparently there's plenty of questionable or illegal transactions going down or they wouldn't be considering such a step.
    "There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," the car company's founder and namesake told ABC News. "They don't exist here."
    Then take that Porkulus money you were loaned and BUILD the facility in the United States, sir.
  • believer
    "There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," the car company's founder and namesake told ABC News. "They don't exist here."
    Then take that Porkulus money you were loaned and BUILD the facility in the United States, sir.
  • fish82
    Bam agrees with Joey on the awesome rape comment. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/20/carney_obama_absolutely_agrees_that_without_jobs_bill_rapes_will_rise.html


    One and Done.
  • QuakerOats
    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/book-steve-jobs-annoyed-obama-during-meeting

    "You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.
  • majorspark
    Don't screw with Biden. What an ass. And that wench aid of his at the end "who are you with". Human Events is now on the shit list.

    [video=youtube;dH5BgyJBxu0][/video]
  • Writerbuckeye
    Hard to believe that two more ineffective, ill-prepared people could have been chosen for one presidential ticket...but here we are.
  • gut
    So the Bush administration was funneling "below the table" payouts to Haliburton, and the Obama administration is doing the same only with green energy companies?
  • LJ
    It's disgusting that Obama is taking credit for the Bush Administration's SOFA
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150230/Obama-Job-Approval-Average-Slides-New-Low-11th-Quarter.aspx
  • gut
    If the economy recovers - and he's running out of time - he'll probably get re-elected. If not, he most likely won't. Zero doubt in my mind businesses have pulled back or taking a wait-and-see approach because of the regulatory and tax environment pushed/promised by this administration. I believe that and have seen that, and as a result can say with 100% certainty that I MUST vote for someone else, regardless of who it is (provided it's not Kim Jong-Il)

    What's interesting to me is I think the Repubs should have given him his $450B stimulus - enough "rope to hang himself", if you will. I'm not sure they wouldn't do that - it's a win/win in that they either support something that works, or blame him for flushing more money down the toilet. Quite possibly they would have gone that route (logically it makes sense), but maybe it's that they recognize it for the waste it is and are actually showing some fiscal discipline for a change. Contrast that with the media painting them as resisting "to sabotage Obama's re-election".
  • Altor
    gut;940889 wrote:What's interesting to me is I think the Repubs should have given him his $450B stimulus - enough "rope to hang himself", if you will. I'm not sure they wouldn't do that - it's a win/win in that they either support something that works, or blame him for flushing more money down the toilet.
    Almost any CongressCritter who voted for that and was up for re-election in 2012 (all of the House, 1/3 of the Senate) would have been hung by the same $450B rope.
  • BoatShoes
    Altor;940900 wrote:Almost any CongressCritter who voted for that and was up for re-election in 2012 (all of the House, 1/3 of the Senate) would have been hung by the same $450B rope.
    Why? The CBO estimates that the American Jobs Act would reduce the deficit by $6 billion over 6 years if accompanied by Harry Reid's surtax ($3 billion without it) and has been estimated to increase GDP by as much as 1.5% and lower unemployment by 1%. On the other hand, allowing the payroll tax cut to expire, preventing an extension of unemployment benefits and scheduled reductions in government spending would reduce GDP by 1.7%. Nevermind that over half the dollar value of the American Jobs Act is tax cuts which Republicans often say cannot add to the deficit and historically support. So, it is disingenuous to say it costs $450 billion when the conservatives on this site always say that "tax cuts don't cost money because then that presupposes that the government owns your money" etc.

    And the direct spending, most of it is to prevent states from engaging in more contractionary fiscal policies which as we have learned over the last 4 years, contractionary fiscal policies contract gdp. period. end of story.

    So again, you say they will be hung by rope if they will vote for something would reduce the deficit over 10 years while also boosting GDP and lowering unemployment in the short term according to non-partisan experts.