You do need a congress to get things passed, but even if you can't fin everything, don't take it in the wrong direction. Obama has managed to tick off every Asian country at us, fail to get China to raise their money's value therefore putting us in a position to lose any leverage we may have had on a global economy meeting losing our superpower status, failed to negotiate the trade deal with South Korea that we wanted and just bowed to everything that every other country has asked of us without getting anything in return, failed to secure our borders (and actually supports bills to make illegals who are already here legal immigrants and just give them more benfits than actual residents can have), printed money to fix any problem he came across devaluing our dollar...It's not all congress' fault, he is in the total wrong direction. Not because he's black, either.

 

 

JH- If George was ACTUALLY as bad as his haters say, why does he have now (reported in the last few days) a higher approval rating than Nobama??? It only took Nobama about 1 1/2 years to PLUNGE in ratings. He went to a 45 from about a 75 when he took office and GW has risen from about a 25 when he left office to a 46 today. At least GW didn't enter office blaming EVERYTHING on Clinton and taking credit for any tiny bit of good news the way Nobama has with GW. 2 years later, it has not begun to let up. Pretty clear to see who has more integrity. There are a # of colored who would have made excellent presidents, Obama was definitely NOT one of them. I read that even Clinton said he runs the country like a Chicago hoodlum. No truer words were ever spoken!

 

GW didn't have much to complain about, Clinton left him with a surplus.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch. (Sept 29, 2008)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_1...28-500803.html

GW left Obama a worsening crisis.




"I read that even Clinton said he runs the country like a Chicago hoodlum."

That's funny, Clinton met with Obama today at the WH and supported him in a press conference.

 

I wouldn't want Michael Jordan as president. That would just be silly.

I would pick Wesley Snipes as Blade. I would feel safer at night knowing my president was a day walker that could kill vampires. Vampires are slowling killing our country. I wonder how many gay vampire movies or tv shows are set to come out next year.

And those that question is tax paying abilities, you are probably douched up vampires.

 

I think you need to read more into Clinton helping Obama out. Obama couldn't handle those in his own party, so he had to call in Clinton for back-up.

As far as Obama inheriting a mess, that is partly true. Gov't spending (Obama has spent more in less than 2 years in office than all presidents from Washington to Reagan combined) only makes things worse for the lower and middle class. It devalues the dollar (making food and energy more expensive) and crowds out businesses from receiving loans that the gov't gets instead. The inflationary effects of gov't borrowing and printing of money won't be fully realized for another 2-3 years.

In short, gov't is not God. Well, at least to liberals it is.

 

One of the problems with the chart is that GDP by definition includes government spending. So if government spending increases massively, it rises the GDP massively, and reduces the debt as a % of GDP, even if most of the government spending is borrowed. I'd like to see a chart showing the debt as a % of private sector production.

FWIW, unfunded liabilities are also not included in the national debt. If the chart showed debt + unfunded liabilities as a % of private sector production, it would absolutely show that we are worse off now under Obama than ever before. Of course, when more of us in the private sector realize us, our kids & grandkids will never be able to pay off the debt + the unfunded liabilities the politicians have already racked up, it's going to get ugly.

 

More hope and change: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Novemb...71600.html?x=0

 

The Source-Hip-Hop Cupcakes - Racist? Foolish? Or Both?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0BeSz5LRCY

 

Not born in the U.S.?

Seriously?

Y'all are still getting off on that fantasy?


http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politic...her.debate.cnn

 

"I read that even Clinton said he runs the country like a Chicago hoodlum."

That's funny, Clinton met with Obama today at the WH and supported him in a press conference.

That's called "low-life's of a feather sticking together". I absolutely did not make that up. It is a known fact that they can't stand each other. Clinton probably got paid a tidy sum to make the appearance. He's not known as "Slick *****" for no reason! They're both for sale for a price.

 

When did I say that? All I said was those with broader shoulders, should carry more of the load. I'm not saying they don't deserve to hang on to their money. I'm just saying, stop screwing the middle-class. If that means screwing the upper-class a little more- so be it. It's about time.

Just to clarify, our opinions are different, although some aspects of our backgrounds seem pretty similar. I too am prior military, been a civilian for 14 years now, well educated (AAS, BS, MBA), Magna *** Laude, I might add) and fairly well-paid. I'm aware more people work for small businesses than they do for corporations, but that's strictly a raw number. When I talk about the numbers, as they relate to employment and taxes, I'm talking about where the most taxes are paid. That burden lies with corporations, and those corporations happen to directly or indirectly (contractors and sub-contractors- aka- small businesses) employ with the most people.

Don't think for a second that Fred's Trailer Hitches, and 1,000 more like that, is paying more in taxes than Wal-Mart alone. Not to mention Exxon, Sears, JcPenney's, AT&T, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc... Corporations pay dearly in taxes, and if tax cuts anywhere, could result in more jobs in the USA, it's with corporations moreso than small business owners. Offering corporations tax cut incentives is why the jobless rate damn-near bottomed out in the 1990's- and Clinton, and his high approval rating was the driving force behind that.

Personally, I think we need to be fair across the board, I'd be 100% in favor of a flat tax. If the tax rate was 20% across the board, that would be fair to everyone. If you make $10,000 a year, give up the 25%, and live on your $7,500. If you make $100,000- then you have to get by on $75,000 after you give Sam his $25,000. Tax businesses earning over a set amount (Say, $1,000,000) 40%, and call it a day.

As for being rich? That formula isn't as simple as you suggest. If it were, there's be a lot of rich people in this country- including me. I'm doing OK, but I'm a LOOOOOOOOONG way from "rich".

Obama was not "rich" when he became President. He was making money off his book, but he's not in that "not worried about money" category. Well, he is now- because he'll make his presidential salary (or a percentage thereof) the rest of his life, now that's he's been President. But, he- like the rest of us Americans, has to pay taxes based upon the same antequated tax code as the rest of us.

We were on our way to losing that status long before Obama took office, but the reason why is- China (about 4-times the US Population) and India (3 times the US Population) are both fertile feeding grounds for American businesses to recognize their new fortune. Investment in those countries is pumping money into their economy, and draining it from ours in terms of tax revenue and employee's job loss. Fewer jobs here means less money flowing, means what once flowed like the Mississippi River, will soon be a modest stream.

We'll still have the strongest military for the foreseeable future, but sooner or later, China will turn some of the money they're getting into military spending. Then, they will truly be formidable.

I was just watching the discovery channel the other day when they discussed our crumbling infrastructure in the USA, while China's highway system will soon be more modern, and cover more miles than the US Interstate system, within the next few years. This is not Obama's doing- this is about US complacency. They are embracing technology over there and while its obvious that you have to grease palms in foreign countries to get things done- they do get done.

Just looking around, China has a Maglev train that whisks riders along at 200+ MPH, in an unmanned train. Meanwhile, it takes us nearly a decade in the US to put in a commuter train, (DART) that rarely breaks 60 MPH, from Dallas to Carrollton... Still waiting on them to build a link to DFW... I'm just saying.

Obama didn't cause everything to collapse. However, having him in office did make people open their eyes and realize how messed up things really were... If only they would realize what got us where we are, rather than simply blame the person currently holding the bag.

 

I'm sorry Hersh but you are falling for the same misconception as many. Corporations(and in your post, I assume you mean large corporations) do not pay tax. People pay taxes whether it's direct or indirect. When a business pays a tax, it passes it on in the price it charges for its goods and services. It does if it wants to stay in business. People pay the tax in the form of higher prices. Just a simple fact of life.

 

Right- I was talking about large corporations.

I don't deny the vicious circle Blue, but that same circle exists with the small business owner as well. Businesses- all businesses, exist to make a profit. If no profit is made, the business will not exist for long. One way or the other, they pay taxes. EBITA.

How they recoup that money (higher prices, outsourcing certain functions, offshoring formerly high-paid labor, etc..) is what a change in taxation could avert- or at least slow down, especially when it comes to job loss.

 

My point is, if you raise taxes for corporations, you are taxing people more, just indirectly. The only way to reduce taxes to the individual, whether it is direct or indirect(passed on by business) is to lower government spending. Lower corporate taxes and that gets passed on through lower prices. The problem is that once a law or procedure is in place, it's next to impossible to reverse it and go back to what it was before. There is always a resistance by those that benefit.