Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;945595 wrote: how exactly will this added 9% tax not further the poverty levels? But more apt to my point, at what percentage of people who are just above the poverty level, now fall below the threshold and into full blown poverty...given that they have to pay an additional 9% on groceries, electric, gas, clothes, tooth brushes. shavers, and toothpaste?

  The price you pay for a good has hidden taxes and tax related costs already baked into it. The only difference is it does not show up on the end of a receipt. Eliminating those taxes and the overhead costs of complying with the onerous tax code will not raise the end price to the consumer w/tax.
  
  All the tax credits, breaks, expenditures, loopholes, etc... mired into the tax code is gone. Corporate lobbyists do not like the Cain plan. It cuts off their feast at the trough. It handicaps them on getting an unfair advantage via the tax code. When taxes are transparent the people will keep them in check. The politically elite fear this. Their game would be over.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;945595 wrote:Yes indeed...your buddy Cain would love to see the impoverished rate hit 50% here in the US. Only the GOP is begging for a less progressive tax. Today, the fucking idiot Perry proposed a flat tax. Is he serious? A flat tax? Then change my estimate from 50% to 60% in poverty if that idiot is elected.

  Do you really think Cain is so sinister he would love to see half of American in poverty? How perverse is that? You speak like a true demagogue. What would Cain have to gain by this? WTF? You have really gone loon here. When can we get you fitted for your straight jacket?
  
  Its one thing to disagree with Cains 9-9-9 plan on its merits. But to say he would love to see 1/2 of America in poverty? Like he devised this plan to achieve that. You may want to start drinking again. Alcohol that is not koolaide.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;945487 wrote:Not to mention that the poverty levels in this country continue to soar.

  Obamanomics
  

  Footwedge;945487 wrote:I honestly think that some of these Republican candidates want to see the poverty rate hit 50%. Why that is, it's not exactly clear.

  I honestly don't know where you get this nonsense. Class warfare is a wonderful thing.
• queencitybuckeye

  Footwedge;945601 wrote:LOL. You don't ever want to equate what I say with that of the fatman on the AM dial. I've listed countless lies that man has spewed. On the other hand, every premise that I've ever stated here has been backed up with facts....or links from non biased sources proving my point to be accurate.

  Yes, like your diatribe on stock options. The only problem was that you had no earthly idea what they are and how they work. You are the board embodiment of "big hat no cattle".
• jmog

  Footwedge;945601 wrote:LOL. You don't ever want to equate what I say with that of the fatman on the AM dial. I've listed countless lies that man has spewed. On the other hand, every premise that I've ever stated here has been backed up with facts....or links from non biased sources proving my point to be accurate.

  You are wrong. What you just said about Cain and Perry is no different than what Rush says about Obama.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.cnbc.com/id/45040668
  
  When you continue to open the government spigot ever wider, then costs are going to continue to soar. Someone, please stop the insanity!
  
  Change we can believe in ...
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;944522 wrote:Well your sarcasm aside, let's suppose you're unemployed. I believe you're in housing or a contractor of some kind? businesses and banks are sitting on cash and consumers are saddled with debt. In a recent wall street journal survey 65% of economists said that lack of demand for goods and services and NOT government policy is the reason for a lack of hiring http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332.html
  
  Thus, a person with $1million on hand, already has the cash to spend for most of the goods and services he desires, and if he puts it in a business or a bank, the money isn't invested or lent or spent on goods and services because there are so many others unemployed or strapped with debt.
  
  So, the government can borrow at incredibly low rates and hire you, a person who's skills and talent are being wasted right now to say, build a great wall of america to prevent illegals from getting in. This will allow you to have a paycheck which you can in turn spend on other goods and services. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on millionaires to account for a loss in revenue coming from a payroll tax cut, can have a similar affect because it leaves more disposable income in the hands of middle and lower income workers while not taking money out of the economy that will likely be spent on goods an services thereby having a lesser impact on gdp.

  There are many flaws in your prose:
  
  1. The 1% do not store their money in bank vaults. They don't visit it on Mondays at lunchtime and toss in another million dollars on their way out the door. Their money is invested in businesses, charities, loans, etc. The $3 trillion "sitting on balance sheets" is not literally sitting anywhere. To confiscate it is to harm the economy in so many other ways as it deducts it from what the 1% are using it to accomplish.
  
  2. Let's say it is just sitting in a vault in lower Manhattan. Taking $450,000,000,000 out of the vault, taking the government cut of 1/3 (probably higher, but it suffices for this point) out, and then giving the remaining $300,000,000,000 to the poor huddled masses, unions, Solyndra-ites, ACORN groups, and other agitator/activists is only a temporary solution. Let's say they spend it all, increase demand for 6 months, factories pop-up, production increases and then when the money runs out...WHAT THEN??? I know the answer. It will be to do it all again over and over and over and... When does it end? For a concrete example, do you remember this exact same scenario with the "Cash for Clunkers" boondoggle? What happened to car sales when the program was over? What happened to the supply of cars for mechanics to work on...did they add jobs or were jobs lost as the supply of cars for them to fix decreased?
  
  3. My predictions, and many others, about inflation are indeed coming true. You don't read about it from the federal government because the pansies removed food and energy costs from their public inflation gauges. They can't report food costs are up over 15% for the year because that would cause fear and panic. Energy costs have increased greatly from 1-20-2009, but no mention of it from the Obama Administration. Hhmmm...can't imagine why they'd like to keep this hush-hush, can you? :rolleyes:
  
  In the end, your solution was tried to a much greater extent with the Obama Porkulus Bill of February 2009 and the Omnibus Spending Bill later in the Spring of 2009 (about $300,000,000,000 in pork projects Barry blamed on Bush, but signed it with his own pen). It failed beyond all expectations that were given in the spring of 2009. Now...you want to repeat failure because...well..umm...ahem...cough...it wasn't spent right the first time. By definition, this administration's economic solutions are insane and those that believe in its failed policies need to lay off the Kool Aid.
• QuakerOats

  
• fish82

  

  majorspark;945623 wrote:Lets start out by putting poverty in America in context. No one is going hungry in America. It may be on the credit card but the taxpayers are taking care of those at income levels defined as "poverty" in the US. Americans at or below the poverty level have purchasing power to buy items beyond the necessities of food, clothing, and shelter.
  
  
  
  
  

  Repped.
  
  In reality, no one in this country has a farking clue what real poverty is. The word should be illegal here, and those who toss it around like a football should be smacked about the face and neck until they get their shit together.
• BGFalcons82

  

  How to create jobs WITHOUT government subsidies, payoffs, and union support - http://republicanherald.com/news/yuengling-to-expand-mill-creek-brewery-1.872683
  
  And how to create 20 jobs in the Dayton area - http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/local/montgomery/wdtn-yuengling-fans-finally-get-their-wish
  
  Huh....they created demand, marketed their product, expanded their business, built new infrastructure, and thusly CREATED JOBS all by themselves. But wait...the owners, a/k/a the risk-takers, will now receive horrible obscene profits from their "greed". They better give all of it to the 99% now, eh?
  
  I wonder if King Obama will tout their successes in any of his teleprompter-readings? :rolleyes::laugh:
• QuakerOats

  http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/31/carney-obama-will-‘continue’-to-act-‘independently’-without-congress/
  
  Der Kommissar shall decide what is best for us ........
  
  Change we can believe in ....
• QuakerOats

  Although Pelosi deserves her own thread, here is this little ditty which again proves she is the biggest dingbat radical left winger ever to occupy the speakership.
  http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/pelosi-heck-yeah-the-government-should-shut-down-that-scab-plant-in-south-carolina/
• jhay78

  

  QuakerOats;953478 wrote:Although Pelosi deserves her own thread, here is this little ditty which again proves she is the biggest dingbat radical left winger ever to occupy the speakership.
  http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/pelosi-heck-yeah-the-government-should-shut-down-that-scab-plant-in-south-carolina/

  Most of the time, liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent (see the War on Poverty); other times, as in Pelosi's case, it generates exactly that of its stated intent: fewer jobs and a crap economy.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;953849 wrote:Most of the time, liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent (see the War on Poverty)

  God this is a horrible example. The poverty rate dropped to its lowest level ever at 11% from 17% and dropped poverty amongst the elderly down from 28% to 10% between 1964 and 1971. I mean does anybody on here look for evidence before they make assertions? Just because it didn't completely eradicate poverty does not mean it didn't make things better for millions of Americans.
  
  
• I Wear Pants

  jhay78;953849 wrote:Most of the time, liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent (see the War on Poverty); other times, as in Pelosi's case, it generates exactly that of its stated intent: fewer jobs and a crap economy.

  What a joke. Why again do the Democrats want to ruin the economy in your view? My foil is waiting.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I Wear Pants;954381 wrote:What a joke. Why again do the Democrats want to ruin the economy in your view? My foil is waiting.

  They don't want to ruin the economy, I agree with you on that. But they do have a stake in having people being dependent on government programs, which largely benefits DEMS and the largesse of our government (as if it could possibly get even larger). It is the same reason African-Americans are largely Democrat voters as government programs tend to help them and the typical campaign argument is the evil GOP wants to cut off aid, even if it is a very practical argument that the DEMS want to keep them on aid to ensure their votes. If the actions of Nancy Pelosi, the Obamas and other very rich Democrats haven't convinced you that the only people they care about are themselves hasn't swayed you, it won't. At least Bill Clinton could credibly try to feel pain. The current DEMS use poor people as pawns in their attempt to maintain power. It isn't just disgusting, it is obvious to anyone that looks at the situation objectively. The U.S. is in the worst situation since the great depression, and the answer is more DEM government.....yeah, look where that got us.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;954468 wrote:They don't want to ruin the economy, I agree with you on that. But they do have a stake in having people being dependent on government programs, which largely benefits DEMS and the largesse of our government (as if it could possibly get even larger). It is the same reason African-Americans are largely Democrat voters as government programs tend to help them and the typical campaign argument is the evil GOP wants to cut off aid, even if it is a very practical argument that the DEMS want to keep them on aid to ensure their votes. If the actions of Nancy Pelosi, the Obamas and other very rich Democrats haven't convinced you that the only people they care about are themselves hasn't swayed you, it won't. At least Bill Clinton could credibly try to feel pain. The current DEMS use poor people as pawns in their attempt to maintain power. It isn't just disgusting, it is obvious to anyone that looks at the situation objectively. The U.S. is in the worst situation since the great depression, and the answer is more DEM government.....yeah, look where that got us.

  The "successes" of the War on Poverty that Boatshoes lays claim to above are basically rolled into what MB has just explained.
  
  In general America's "poor" are well fed, well clothed, and enjoy creature comforts that the world's truly poor would look upon with envy.
  
  The problem with the War on Poverty is that while it might provide the basic necessities of American daily living via gubmint forced redistribution of wealth, it rarely provides an actual way out of the poverty cycle. It is designed largely to keep people on the welfare rolls and; therefore, generally translates to automatic votes for the Democratic Party...by the inner-city bus load.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "it rarely provides an actual way out of the poverty cycle. "
  
  This is called economic mobility, as opposed to economic inequality. People can grow up relatively poor (as do some, if not many of us), and end up doing very well for themselves with opportunities created by American ingenuity. That is economic mobility. Economic inequality is what these hoseheads protesting want on the one hand, while on the other hand fail to realize that inequality isn't a zero sum game. I don't care that even the most odious of celebrities have enough to buy 300 BMWs as long as I have the opportunity to buy a car that makes me feel happy and fortunate. Having worked with many millionaires/billionaires (in a few cases), money doesn't buy you happiness.
  
  American ingenuity does not equate economic equality. I'm not the biggest fan of either political party but I can assure anyone that the POTUS and most of his party believes in the latter, hell or highwater notwithstanding, while the opposing party with its champion (cough, Reagan) lauded the former. I'd rather be the 51 percenter in a rich country than a 99 percenter in Nigeria. A lot of these protesters should spend more time and money in a passport and a visit to a country with real poverty.
• gut

  It's amazing. I've been conditioned/bombarded with the "growing poverty problem" in the US and those charts say the opposite. Who can look at those charts and honestly say it's not a shock vs. what we hear in the media and out of the mouths of liberal politicians?
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;954381 wrote:What a joke. Why again do the Democrats want to ruin the economy in your view? My foil is waiting.

  What he said below . . .
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;954468 wrote:They don't want to ruin the economy, I agree with you on that. But they do have a stake in having people being dependent on government programs, which largely benefits DEMS and the largesse of our government (as if it could possibly get even larger). It is the same reason African-Americans are largely Democrat voters as government programs tend to help them and the typical campaign argument is the evil GOP wants to cut off aid, even if it is a very practical argument that the DEMS want to keep them on aid to ensure their votes.
  
  If the actions of Nancy Pelosi, the Obamas and other very rich Democrats haven't convinced you that the only people they care about are themselves hasn't swayed you, it won't. At least Bill Clinton could credibly try to feel pain. The current DEMS use poor people as pawns in their attempt to maintain power. It isn't just disgusting, it is obvious to anyone that looks at the situation objectively. The U.S. is in the worst situation since the great depression, and the answer is more DEM government.....yeah, look where that got us.

• I Wear Pants

  believer;954475 wrote:The "successes" of the War on Poverty that Boatshoes lays claim to above are basically rolled into what MB has just explained.
  
  In general America's "poor" are well fed, well clothed, and enjoy creature comforts that the world's truly poor would look upon with envy.
  
  The problem with the War on Poverty is that while it might provide the basic necessities of American daily living via gubmint forced redistribution of wealth, it rarely provides an actual way out of the poverty cycle. It is designed largely to keep people on the welfare rolls and; therefore, generally translates to automatic votes for the Democratic Party...by the inner-city bus load.

  Wouldn't conservatives argue that the poor of the rest of the world don't matter but only those that are US citizens? So your comparison wouldn't really be valid.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;955209 wrote:Wouldn't conservatives argue that the poor of the rest of the world don't matter but only those that are US citizens? So your comparison wouldn't really be valid.

  Once again Pants ignores reality.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;955209 wrote:Wouldn't conservatives argue that the poor of the rest of the world don't matter but only those that are US citizens? So your comparison wouldn't really be valid.

  I thought you did not like blanket statements. I would argue charity is no business of the federal government. Personally I am much more inspired to give to the true poor of the rest of the world rather than US citizens. Those that lack the means to put clothes on their back, food on the table, and a roof over their head. Its a little hard for me to work up some inspiration to give my hard earned cash to some redneck in a double wide that has sattelite TV, and a 50" flatscreen to watch NASCAR. Or some baby momma living in the projects that has cell phones and XBOX for the kidders.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;955655 wrote:I thought you did not like blanket statements. I would argue charity is no business of the federal government. Personally I am much more inspired to give to the true poor of the rest of the world rather than US citizens. Those that lack the means to put clothes on their back, food on the table, and a roof over their head. Its a little hard for me to work up some inspiration to give my hard earned cash to some redneck in a double wide that has sattelite TV, and a 50" flatscreen to watch NASCAR. Or some baby momma living in the projects that has cell phones and XBOX for the kidders.

  Did I really need to type "in general" after conservatives?
  
  And your answer right there is exactly what I was looking for. I accept those reasons even though I think you're assuming far too much if you believer there aren't actual impoverished people in the US and that every "poor" person has cell phones and an Xbox.
  ]
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;955684 wrote:Did I really need to type "in general" after conservatives?

  No. "In general" is assumed. So it is still a blanket assumption. One that I would contend to be incorrect. Now if you said some conservatives. You may be correct. Many, most, "in general", sorry. We are all guilty of these assumptions at times. I have made some blanket assumptions about the OWS protestors. I believe them to be correct but maybe in time I will see many intelligent individuals reason the movement out and articulate any facts supporting it. I am not holding my breath.
  

  I Wear Pants;955684 wrote: And your answer right there is exactly what I was looking for. I accept those reasons even though I think you're assuming far too much if you believer there aren't actual impoverished people in the US and that every "poor" person has cell phones and an Xbox.

  There are some that don't get the extras. But in this country there are none that are unable to receive the basics (food, shelter, and clothing). If not they are hiding in the backwoods somewhere. Government or private these basics are available to all.
  
  In the case of natural disaster that temporarily removes these basics for some of our citizens. Where they have need they are at the top of the list above others in need in this world. For me it would likely come in the form of a personal donation of labor rather than in the form of donating a basic material need.