President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

FACT: YOU said, "\Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse."

I did and its a fact. Most economists point to that legislation as the starting point for the 2008 collapse...

FACT: I did NOT say you defended Bush, but was responding to your statement I quoted above by stating the below facts:

FACT: Bush had YEARS to do something about the deregulation of banks and chose to do nothing...THAT is a demostrated lack of leadership. Signing a bill is NOT a demonstrated lack of leadership.

Clinton studied economics at Oxford.. so signing a bill that repeals an existing Act that came about as a result of an Congressional investigation into the cause of a economic collapse - when there was clear empirical evidence that the some conditions would have the same results... is a monstrous demonstration of a lack of leadership, and also a validation of Einsteins Theory of Insanity...

Obama even challenged the act and that it led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of something banned since the Great Depression.



FACT: By Bush NOT doing anything about deregulation for YEARS shows that he shares in the blame for the collapse

Never said he didn't.. and I agree he shares the blame... as does Congress

FACT: Your inability to recognize the above fact shows your bias towards Bush and against Clinton.

No.. I'm not biased at all.. Bush was an idiot.. however .. you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing... but whatever..

Opinion: mini-bush was the worst leader this country has ever had. Daddy Bush was the most mediocre leader this country has ever had. Clinton was one of the best leaders this nation has ever had. He replaced JFK as the icon that modern Democrats strive to emulate...that is not an easy task. Too bad Republicans can't find a rival for Reagan.

Again - you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing...

Face it - you're a partisan hack... you can't see the wrong in a leader regardless of political party.. just admit it and you'll feel better...

[/quote]

You are trying to spin it any way you can. The bottom line is doing NOTHING is a lack of leadership...and that is EXACTLY what Bush did - nothing. Clinton and Bush SHARE responsibility for it....and it happened under Bush's watch and as a 'leader' he 'should' take the responsibility himself. But, as a failed leader, he would never do that.

You are just as partisan as anybody else...the difference is you try to spin your way out of it. But, when things like this come up where even YOU say that it's a "leadership thing" but fail to admit how poorly W performed as a 'leader'...until it is pointed out And, you end up contradicting yourself by first saying, "Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse." Then, just a few sentences later, you admit Bush shares the blame. You can't see how bias that is because you ignore one half of the equation because it does not fit in your rhetoric of Clinton as a leader? Before you start accusing others of being partisan, maybe you should stop acting like that yourself.

[Monker]

He is going to reduce the defecit by 4 TRILLION fucking dollars in ten years. He is also correct that you cannot only cut spending- there needs to be a combination of tax revenue and cuts.
.

...and a growing economy.

[Memorex]

The bummer - CBO says after taking out budget gimmicks, this budget only reduces debt by less than 300 billion. That's basically 0. No politician on either side of the aisle is interested in reducing anything. It's absolutely disgusting.

[Monker]

The bummer - CBO says after taking out budget gimmicks, this budget only reduces debt by less than 300 billion. That's basically 0. No politician on either side of the aisle is interested in reducing anything. It's absolutely disgusting.

Any politician who is interested in reducing the deficit will not be elected. Cut defense, cut social security benefits to those who don't need it, and raise taxes. That is the only way it can happen...and nobody who asks for that will ever be elected.

[Memorex]

The bummer - CBO says after taking out budget gimmicks, this budget only reduces debt by less than 300 billion. That's basically 0. No politician on either side of the aisle is interested in reducing anything. It's absolutely disgusting.

Any politician who is interested in reducing the deficit will not be elected. Cut defense, cut social security benefits to those who don't need it, and raise taxes. That is the only way it can happen...and nobody who asks for that will ever be elected.

Not sure what this obsession is with raising taxes. I don't see how anyone can look at this and see a balanced system. The amount of fraud, over-spending, handouts, waste, etc far outweighs anything taxes can offset. BY FAR! There is no calculation by which raising taxes can even begin to solve our problem. If you took 100% of all the money of all the rich people, there is still a huge problem. That's a simple fact. So, instead of worry about what people have in terms of their own personal wealth, why can't all the energy be put into solving the actual problem. More taxes are a band aid.

If you had a daughter and she was 25 and she spent all her money partying and dancing and giving it to bums, and she kept coming to you for money over and over - at what point do you tell her ok, I'll help you, but first you have to change your situation? First you have to be smart. Wouldn't you realize that giving her more money only makes the problem worse?

There is no way anyone can honestly say that we are in this position because of low taxes. That is just plain silly. Tell me a country with higher taxes and smartly spent money where this is working.

I make pretty good money and I don't mind contributing a fair share of taxes. But when I see the abuses, when I see that people just want handouts and free this and free that, when I see how much of a drain these things put on all the lives around us, then hell no I don't want to pay more.

My wife and I are generous to a fault. We often take care of three or four families along with ours. We buy Christmas' for families, we do all we can to the point that it breaks us. But we do it in a way that we know is helpful and for people that are doing all they can for themselves. I don't have a problem putting my money to use when I have it - we aren't selfish. But fix the God Damn problem before you take even more from me.

I'd like to see Defense cut, but not to where we were in the early 80's. Somewhere between Carter and Reagan would work for me. I love the drone program and I love that Obama is bypassing any trial costs, torture worries, etc by just killing anything that moves from a few miles in the air. Cheap, effective, efficient. But, if someone is killing their own people for the hell of it, let's send in some folks to put that shit to a stop. If you want to stop social security to those who don't need it, then they ought to have a choice to contribute to SS or not. This is America after all.

The numbers detailing the amount of government assistance in this country are so out of control. And it doesn't help in the long run. I heard the other day that the average government assistance now surpasses the average american wage. Fix that first, then knock on my door for more money.

But no one will. Not Democrats, not Republicans, no one. They sucker us all.

[mmberry301]

The bummer - CBO says after taking out budget gimmicks, this budget only reduces debt by less than 300 billion. That's basically 0. No politician on either side of the aisle is interested in reducing anything. It's absolutely disgusting.

Any politician who is interested in reducing the deficit will not be elected. Cut defense, cut social security benefits to those who don't need it, and raise taxes. That is the only way it can happen...and nobody who asks for that will ever be elected.

Not sure what this obsession is with raising taxes. I don't see how anyone can look at this and see a balanced system. The amount of fraud, over-spending, handouts, waste, etc far outweighs anything taxes can offset. BY FAR! There is no calculation by which raising taxes can even begin to solve our problem. If you took 100% of all the money of all the rich people, there is still a huge problem. That's a simple fact. So, instead of worry about what people have in terms of their own personal wealth, why can't all the energy be put into solving the actual problem. More taxes are a band aid.

If you had a daughter and she was 25 and she spent all her money partying and dancing and giving it to bums, and she kept coming to you for money over and over - at what point do you tell her ok, I'll help you, but first you have to change your situation? First you have to be smart. Wouldn't you realize that giving her more money only makes the problem worse?

There is no way anyone can honestly say that we are in this position because of low taxes. That is just plain silly. Tell me a country with higher taxes and smartly spent money where this is working.

I make pretty good money and I don't mind contributing a fair share of taxes. But when I see the abuses, when I see that people just want handouts and free this and free that, when I see how much of a drain these things put on all the lives around us, then hell no I don't want to pay more.

My wife and I are generous to a fault. We often take care of three or four families along with ours. We buy Christmas' for families, we do all we can to the point that it breaks us. But we do it in a way that we know is helpful and for people that are doing all they can for themselves. I don't have a problem putting my money to use when I have it - we aren't selfish. But fix the God Damn problem before you take even more from me.

I'd like to see Defense cut, but not to where we were in the early 80's. Somewhere between Carter and Reagan would work for me. I love the drone program and I love that Obama is bypassing any trial costs, torture worries, etc by just killing anything that moves from a few miles in the air. Cheap, effective, efficient. But, if someone is killing their own people for the hell of it, let's send in some folks to put that shit to a stop. If you want to stop social security to those who don't need it, then they ought to have a choice to contribute to SS or not. This is America after all.

The numbers detailing the amount of government assistance in this country are so out of control. And it doesn't help in the long run. I heard the other day that the average government assistance now surpasses the average american wage. Fix that first, then knock on my door for more money.

But no one will. Not Democrats, not Republicans, no one. They sucker us all.

Standing O...right on point.

[G.I.Jim]

The bummer - CBO says after taking out budget gimmicks, this budget only reduces debt by less than 300 billion. That's basically 0. No politician on either side of the aisle is interested in reducing anything. It's absolutely disgusting.

Any politician who is interested in reducing the deficit will not be elected. Cut defense, cut social security benefits to those who don't need it, and raise taxes. That is the only way it can happen...and nobody who asks for that will ever be elected.

Not sure what this obsession is with raising taxes. I don't see how anyone can look at this and see a balanced system. The amount of fraud, over-spending, handouts, waste, etc far outweighs anything taxes can offset. BY FAR! There is no calculation by which raising taxes can even begin to solve our problem. If you took 100% of all the money of all the rich people, there is still a huge problem. That's a simple fact. So, instead of worry about what people have in terms of their own personal wealth, why can't all the energy be put into solving the actual problem. More taxes are a band aid.

If you had a daughter and she was 25 and she spent all her money partying and dancing and giving it to bums, and she kept coming to you for money over and over - at what point do you tell her ok, I'll help you, but first you have to change your situation? First you have to be smart. Wouldn't you realize that giving her more money only makes the problem worse?

There is no way anyone can honestly say that we are in this position because of low taxes. That is just plain silly. Tell me a country with higher taxes and smartly spent money where this is working.

I make pretty good money and I don't mind contributing a fair share of taxes. But when I see the abuses, when I see that people just want handouts and free this and free that, when I see how much of a drain these things put on all the lives around us, then hell no I don't want to pay more.

My wife and I are generous to a fault. We often take care of three or four families along with ours. We buy Christmas' for families, we do all we can to the point that it breaks us. But we do it in a way that we know is helpful and for people that are doing all they can for themselves. I don't have a problem putting my money to use when I have it - we aren't selfish. But fix the God Damn problem before you take even more from me.

I'd like to see Defense cut, but not to where we were in the early 80's. Somewhere between Carter and Reagan would work for me. I love the drone program and I love that Obama is bypassing any trial costs, torture worries, etc by just killing anything that moves from a few miles in the air. Cheap, effective, efficient. But, if someone is killing their own people for the hell of it, let's send in some folks to put that shit to a stop. If you want to stop social security to those who don't need it, then they ought to have a choice to contribute to SS or not. This is America after all.

The numbers detailing the amount of government assistance in this country are so out of control. And it doesn't help in the long run. I heard the other day that the average government assistance now surpasses the average american wage. Fix that first, then knock on my door for more money.

But no one will. Not Democrats, not Republicans, no one. They sucker us all.

Dude... you just posted the freaking post of the YEAR right here!!! You and I must be long lost twins or something...

[G.I.Jim]

Dude... you just posted the freaking post of the YEAR right here!!! You and I must be long lost twins or something...

It is a fantastic post, and I for one, have been waiting all damn day for Dean or Monker or TNC to respond to it.

I'm sure they'll stoop to a diversionary tactic. Can't admit it, so we'll attack from a different side...

[Monker]

The bummer - CBO says after taking out budget gimmicks, this budget only reduces debt by less than 300 billion. That's basically 0. No politician on either side of the aisle is interested in reducing anything. It's absolutely disgusting.

Any politician who is interested in reducing the deficit will not be elected. Cut defense, cut social security benefits to those who don't need it, and raise taxes. That is the only way it can happen...and nobody who asks for that will ever be elected.

Not sure what this obsession is with raising taxes. I don't see how anyone can look at this and see a balanced system. The amount of fraud, over-spending, handouts, waste, etc far outweighs anything taxes can offset. BY FAR! There is no calculation by which raising taxes can even begin to solve our problem. If you took 100% of all the money of all the rich people, there is still a huge problem. That's a simple fact. So, instead of worry about what people have in terms of their own personal wealth, why can't all the energy be put into solving the actual problem. More taxes are a band aid.

If you had a daughter and she was 25 and she spent all her money partying and dancing and giving it to bums, and she kept coming to you for money over and over - at what point do you tell her ok, I'll help you, but first you have to change your situation? First you have to be smart. Wouldn't you realize that giving her more money only makes the problem worse?

There is no way anyone can honestly say that we are in this position because of low taxes. That is just plain silly. Tell me a country with higher taxes and smartly spent money where this is working.

I make pretty good money and I don't mind contributing a fair share of taxes. But when I see the abuses, when I see that people just want handouts and free this and free that, when I see how much of a drain these things put on all the lives around us, then hell no I don't want to pay more.

My wife and I are generous to a fault. We often take care of three or four families along with ours. We buy Christmas' for families, we do all we can to the point that it breaks us. But we do it in a way that we know is helpful and for people that are doing all they can for themselves. I don't have a problem putting my money to use when I have it - we aren't selfish. But fix the God Damn problem before you take even more from me.

I'd like to see Defense cut, but not to where we were in the early 80's. Somewhere between Carter and Reagan would work for me. I love the drone program and I love that Obama is bypassing any trial costs, torture worries, etc by just killing anything that moves from a few miles in the air. Cheap, effective, efficient. But, if someone is killing their own people for the hell of it, let's send in some folks to put that shit to a stop. If you want to stop social security to those who don't need it, then they ought to have a choice to contribute to SS or not. This is America after all.

The numbers detailing the amount of government assistance in this country are so out of control. And it doesn't help in the long run. I heard the other day that the average government assistance now surpasses the average american wage. Fix that first, then knock on my door for more money.

But no one will. Not Democrats, not Republicans, no one. They sucker us all.

and, people like you are part of the problem. I did NOT just say 'raise taxes'. I also said to cut military spending AND social security spending, and raise taxes. ALL of this has to be done to have a balanced budget. Unless you can do it all you are full of shit and are not serious about a balance budget.

[Monker]

Dude... you just posted the freaking post of the YEAR right here!!! You and I must be long lost twins or something...

It is a fantastic post, and I for one, have been waiting all damn day for Dean or Monker or TNC to respond to it.

Then you seriously need to get a life.

[Memorex]

The bummer - CBO says after taking out budget gimmicks, this budget only reduces debt by less than 300 billion. That's basically 0. No politician on either side of the aisle is interested in reducing anything. It's absolutely disgusting.

Any politician who is interested in reducing the deficit will not be elected. Cut defense, cut social security benefits to those who don't need it, and raise taxes. That is the only way it can happen...and nobody who asks for that will ever be elected.

Not sure what this obsession is with raising taxes. I don't see how anyone can look at this and see a balanced system. The amount of fraud, over-spending, handouts, waste, etc far outweighs anything taxes can offset. BY FAR! There is no calculation by which raising taxes can even begin to solve our problem. If you took 100% of all the money of all the rich people, there is still a huge problem. That's a simple fact. So, instead of worry about what people have in terms of their own personal wealth, why can't all the energy be put into solving the actual problem. More taxes are a band aid.

If you had a daughter and she was 25 and she spent all her money partying and dancing and giving it to bums, and she kept coming to you for money over and over - at what point do you tell her ok, I'll help you, but first you have to change your situation? First you have to be smart. Wouldn't you realize that giving her more money only makes the problem worse?

There is no way anyone can honestly say that we are in this position because of low taxes. That is just plain silly. Tell me a country with higher taxes and smartly spent money where this is working.

I make pretty good money and I don't mind contributing a fair share of taxes. But when I see the abuses, when I see that people just want handouts and free this and free that, when I see how much of a drain these things put on all the lives around us, then hell no I don't want to pay more.

My wife and I are generous to a fault. We often take care of three or four families along with ours. We buy Christmas' for families, we do all we can to the point that it breaks us. But we do it in a way that we know is helpful and for people that are doing all they can for themselves. I don't have a problem putting my money to use when I have it - we aren't selfish. But fix the God Damn problem before you take even more from me.

I'd like to see Defense cut, but not to where we were in the early 80's. Somewhere between Carter and Reagan would work for me. I love the drone program and I love that Obama is bypassing any trial costs, torture worries, etc by just killing anything that moves from a few miles in the air. Cheap, effective, efficient. But, if someone is killing their own people for the hell of it, let's send in some folks to put that shit to a stop. If you want to stop social security to those who don't need it, then they ought to have a choice to contribute to SS or not. This is America after all.

The numbers detailing the amount of government assistance in this country are so out of control. And it doesn't help in the long run. I heard the other day that the average government assistance now surpasses the average american wage. Fix that first, then knock on my door for more money.

But no one will. Not Democrats, not Republicans, no one. They sucker us all.

and, people like you are part of the problem. I did NOT just say 'raise taxes'. I also said to cut military spending AND social security spending, and raise taxes. ALL of this has to be done to have a balanced budget. Unless you can do it all you are full of shit and are not serious about a balance budget.

Well, I don't consider myself full of shit. I just believe strongly that we pay more than enough taxes. Taking more of something to offset your reductions doesn't mean something is balanced. Balanced to me would mean bringing spending on all sides in line with the already sufficient taxes.

We can gain much more by reigning in spending than we ever could with taxes.

Here is the difference. You look at someone that is wealthy and just naturally feel they have more to spare, they have room to give. I look at it as that person worked hard for their money and they should not be forced to contribute more to a broken, fraudulent, corrupt system. In America, if we are going to take someone's money, we ought to have the responsibility to spend it as wisely as possible.

So we just start at different premises. What you and I consider fair are two different things.

Oh - and as far as the wealthy go - if you made your money by unfair, deceitful, or fraudulent practices, you should by law be forced to forfeit every dime you made plus a little extra for being an asshole. I'm sorry, wall street and banks don't get a pass just because congress told them to do something. I would love Obama to prosecute the scum bags heading these organizations, so long as he had the balls to also take down the congress scum that perpetrated the fraud in the first place. But each side wants to blame the other and again, both spend our hard earned money.

[Monker]

Well, I don't consider myself full of shit.

Of course not. Neither do the neo-cons who do not want to touch defense. Neither do the selfish who do not want to touch social security, or whatever other pet social program. But, you are collectively full of shit if you believe that across the board changes are not needed to effectively balance the budget.

I just believe strongly that we pay more than enough taxes.

So what. You have a choice of either believing that and ignoring the deficit, or you seriously want to engage the deficit issue. You are not serious.

Taking more of something to offset your reductions doesn't mean something is balanced. Balanced to me would mean bringing spending on all sides in line with the already sufficient taxes.

There is no way this country would ever accept the amount of cuts it would take.

We can gain much more by reigning in spending than we ever could with taxes.

And, it still wouldn't be enough. THAT is the problem.

Here is the difference. You look at someone that is wealthy and just naturally feel they have more to spare

I look at somebody who is retired but earning $250,000 from investments as not needing my tax dollars to be added to that income as a social security benefit. I look at my saving account being taxed as income and capital gains taxes being taxed at half as much being unequal and not right. I look at the EXCUSES for tax cuts during the W years as being ineffective for helping the economy and should be returned back if people are whining about the deficit.

It has nothing to do with a 'wealthy' person having "more to give". It is using common sense to address the deficit issue. But, when people are full of shit, they don't use common sense.

[verslibre]

[Memorex]

I guess I don't understand. You say I am collectively full of shit if I don't want to cut across the board - I do. So you seem to be lumping me in with other people. Not sure why. I said cut, cut, cut. Totally across the board - all areas - everything. That's job 1 before anything else. So focusing only on this, where am I full of shit? This may help us understand our differences.

You say I have a choice of either believing we pay enough in taxes and ignore the debt, or engage the deficit issue. Kind of a strange statement when I think my whole premise is reducing the deficit by using cuts first, fraud and waste cleanup first, having a more efficient system first, then deciding on how best to deal with taxes second. So for me, I am being very serious about cutting our debt while at the same time knowing we can get mostly there by reducing the size of government. So I ask again, focused only on this, where am I full of shit? Where am I not serious about deficit reduction?

You say there is no way the country would ever accept the amount of cuts it would take. Agreed. There would be riots in the street. But just because that may be a true statement doesn't make the solution wrong. And if you want to avoid these issues because it's too hard, fine. But don't fucking come to me for more money. Handle your shit. Cutting the government is in fact the only way to get this under control whether we can/will do it or not. You can't change a correct answer just because someone doesn't agree with it. Fact is fact. I again point out that you could take all the money from all the rich people and it would not make a dent. Look at the new budget. I think it raises taxes by 2 trillion. Which is insane on it's face. Anyway, after raising taxes by 2 trillion, removing the half trillion in tax cuts and all the budget gimmicks, it lowers the deficit less than 300 billion over 10 years. That's not even a serious effort for a 5th grader. And you and i both know 300 billion in reduction really amounts to about another 5 trillion in debt when things just continue on as they have. Please tell me again where I am full of shit.

You say reducing spending would still not be enough. We probably disagree here, but I am really not sure. You know why I am not sure? Because spending is so far out of control and has been my whole life, that I have no idea what a lean, mean efficient government even looks like. I don't know the end result of massive cuts - maybe no one does. But I know one thing, if they reigned in spending, waste, and fraud, they would not have to raise taxes by 2 trillion dollars just to keep pace. What you want to do is put in some cuts and add taxes. What I want is massive far reaching cuts and then an evaluation of the tax needs. So even if you disagree, tell me where I am full of shit.

You think it's common sense to take someone's money to address the deficit issue. And this is probably why you and I will never ever agree. I really cannot wrap my head around that argument at all. I mean yes, wealthier people should pay more and they do (for the most part). I know I pay more than people that make less money than me even tough I use the government far less and I am OK with that - completely. But I am not OK with a system by which the government can say you don't get your social security because we have deemed you too rich, however, we will continue to spend money any which way we choose whether you like it or not. So give us your cash and don't worry about us. To me, that is criminal. That is dictatorship. I could be on board with this idea if we had an efficient system where I know my money would be spent appropriately. So, again, please, tell me where I am full of shit?

As far as taxes - get rid of the loopholes, get rid of the idea that corporations pay no taxes (including those that support this administration and the one before it after it). I'll agree that the capital gains tax should be more in line with income tax if you'll agree that the death tax is about as overreaching a tax as one could imagine. And guess what - the death tax gets a nice big bump in the new budget. That's the kind of insane crap I am talking about.

I'm not a neo-con by any means. I'm nothing that either side could fit in your stupid little partisan boxes. I just feel more strongly about tax abuse and the fraudulent activities of our government in the world of spending than others. Shouldn't we all be?

Like I said - they keep us fighting. It will be a knockdown drag-out fight between Obama and Romney or whoever the puppeteers put in place and they will spend almost 2 billion dollars between them fighting for the right to get up there and do the same shit all over again. But all of you will stand by your men and hate your fellow man along the way. So much hatred. Astounds me. Hurts me. The establishment, in my opinion, has won at dividing us while they do what they want.

All this to say - I'm a good guy. A family man. A hard worker. So just because you disagree with me, maybe you shouldn't say I am full of shit. Maybe a little more respect for your fellow man is where things ought to start. Wouldn't that scare the shit out of the party leaders. God forbid 300 million of us engage in real discussion.

[hoagiepete]

I look at somebody who is retired but earning $250,000 from investments as not needing my tax dollars to be added to that income as a social security benefit. I look at my saving account being taxed as income and capital gains taxes being taxed at half as much being unequal and not right. I look at the EXCUSES for tax cuts during the W years as being ineffective for helping the economy and should be returned back if people are whining about the deficit.

It has nothing to do with a 'wealthy' person having "more to give". It is using common sense to address the deficit issue. But, when people are full of shit, they don't use common sense.

Two thoughts.

Social Security Benefit? The benefit is a return on the money they (and their employer) paid in for the previous 40-50 years. So you're proposing a retroactive tax on all those that paid in over the course of their career?

Taxing a savings account return the same as capital gains shows the shallow thinking involved with this argument. Capital gains involve risk. There is no risk in a savings account. There must be a potential return to merit the risk. If the return on that risk goes to the government, the incentive to invest is lost.

No investments, no companies. No companies, no profits. No profits, no jobs or taxes. No taxes, no benefits for those that need them...or think they need them.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

I guess I don't understand. You say I am collectively full of shit.

Well......let me see...you have a log in and post on this message board....like every single one of us on here, you are full of shit. Theres not a single one of us who ever makes a shred of sense!

[Memorex]

I guess I don't understand. You say I am collectively full of shit.

Well......let me see...you have a log in and post on this message board....like every single one of us on here, you are full of shit. Theres not a single one of us who ever makes a shred of sense!

That I can agree with.

[Monker]

Social Security Benefit? The benefit is a return on the money they (and their employer) paid in for the previous 40-50 years. So you're proposing a retroactive tax on all those that paid in over the course of their career?

The current working generation is taxed to pay for the current generation of retirees. There is not some goofy investment strategy to keep what you were taxed to pay you later. How do you think the first Social Security checks were earned?

There was a surplus in SS taxes in recent years because the baby boomer generation was working. There will be a SS deficit in future years because the Baby boomers are now retiring and taking benefits.

I think Social Security should be renamed to the "Senior Welfare System"...maybe then some people will feel a bit ashamed of taking benefits if they have to admit they are on welfare.

Taxing a savings account return the same as capital gains shows the shallow thinking involved with this argument. Capital gains involve risk. There is no risk in a savings account. There must be a potential return to merit the risk. If the return on that risk goes to the government, the incentive to invest is lost.

It makes no difference. They are both income and should be accounted as such. I would also argue that banks fail so it is untrue to say there is 'no risk'....just very, very little.

No investments, no companies. No companies, no profits. No profits, no jobs or taxes. No taxes, no benefits for those that need them...or think they need them.

No savings, no banks, no loans, no capital for business to use to grow...see the rest of the story from your words above...and the economy shortly after the crash a few years ago...you know, when banks were holding back credit so bushiness could not get loans to make their payrolls.

IMO, the thinking should be reversed in this economy....capital gains should be counted as income and interest from a bank account should be tax free. That would encourage people to boost their savings account, giving more money to banks so they can loosen credit, making it easier to borrow for both individuals and companies.

[hoagiepete]

The banks have tons of money! They're just not loaning it...largely due to the new regulations put forth by the federal government! That is plain nuts!

The first 250,000 is insured so it is safe.

Without investments, the US and our capitalistic society is doomed. They've already moved the jobs and I guess now we want to move the corporations themselves too?

[slucero]

FACT: YOU said, "\Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse."

I did and its a fact. Most economists point to that legislation as the starting point for the 2008 collapse...

FACT: I did NOT say you defended Bush, but was responding to your statement I quoted above by stating the below facts:

FACT: Bush had YEARS to do something about the deregulation of banks and chose to do nothing...THAT is a demostrated lack of leadership. Signing a bill is NOT a demonstrated lack of leadership.

Clinton studied economics at Oxford.. so signing a bill that repeals an existing Act that came about as a result of an Congressional investigation into the cause of a economic collapse - when there was clear empirical evidence that the some conditions would have the same results... is a monstrous demonstration of a lack of leadership, and also a validation of Einsteins Theory of Insanity...

Obama even challenged the act and that it led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of something banned since the Great Depression.



FACT: By Bush NOT doing anything about deregulation for YEARS shows that he shares in the blame for the collapse

Never said he didn't.. and I agree he shares the blame... as does Congress

FACT: Your inability to recognize the above fact shows your bias towards Bush and against Clinton.

No.. I'm not biased at all.. Bush was an idiot.. however .. you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing... but whatever..

Opinion: mini-bush was the worst leader this country has ever had. Daddy Bush was the most mediocre leader this country has ever had. Clinton was one of the best leaders this nation has ever had. He replaced JFK as the icon that modern Democrats strive to emulate...that is not an easy task. Too bad Republicans can't find a rival for Reagan.

Again - you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing...

Face it - you're a partisan hack... you can't see the wrong in a leader regardless of political party.. just admit it and you'll feel better...

You are trying to spin it any way you can. The bottom line is doing NOTHING is a lack of leadership...and that is EXACTLY what Bush did - nothing. Clinton and Bush SHARE responsibility for it....and it happened under Bush's watch and as a 'leader' he 'should' take the responsibility himself. But, as a failed leader, he would never do that.

You are just as partisan as anybody else...the difference is you try to spin your way out of it. But, when things like this come up where even YOU say that it's a "leadership thing" but fail to admit how poorly W performed as a 'leader'...until it is pointed out And, you end up contradicting yourself by first saying, "Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse." Then, just a few sentences later, you admit Bush shares the blame. You can't see how bias that is because you ignore one half of the equation because it does not fit in your rhetoric of Clinton as a leader? Before you start accusing others of being partisan, maybe you should stop acting like that yourself.

Actually.. Clinton, Bush and multiple Congresses share the blame, but you don't care about Congress cause yer too wrapped up in your hate for anything that isn't Democrat...

Its spin if I say Bush is culpable.. and if you say he is its "FACT"..... lmao..

pull your head out... or better yet.. leave it in.. and breathe deeply.. you obviously like the smell....

[conversationpc]

pull your head out... or better yet.. leave it in.. and breathe deeply.. you obviously like the smell....

[Monker]

The banks have tons of money! They're just not loaning it...largely due to the new regulations put forth by the federal government! That is plain nuts!

The first 250,000 is insured so it is safe.

Without investments, the US and our capitalistic society is doomed. They've already moved the jobs and I guess now we want to move the corporations themselves too?

It doesn't make any difference. People invest to make money. If they make money, that is income and it should be taxed as income.....not as some magical pixie dust that makes companies prosper.

[Monker]

FACT: YOU said, "\Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse."

I did and its a fact. Most economists point to that legislation as the starting point for the 2008 collapse...

FACT: I did NOT say you defended Bush, but was responding to your statement I quoted above by stating the below facts:

FACT: Bush had YEARS to do something about the deregulation of banks and chose to do nothing...THAT is a demostrated lack of leadership. Signing a bill is NOT a demonstrated lack of leadership.

Clinton studied economics at Oxford.. so signing a bill that repeals an existing Act that came about as a result of an Congressional investigation into the cause of a economic collapse - when there was clear empirical evidence that the some conditions would have the same results... is a monstrous demonstration of a lack of leadership, and also a validation of Einsteins Theory of Insanity...

Obama even challenged the act and that it led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of something banned since the Great Depression.



FACT: By Bush NOT doing anything about deregulation for YEARS shows that he shares in the blame for the collapse

Never said he didn't.. and I agree he shares the blame... as does Congress

FACT: Your inability to recognize the above fact shows your bias towards Bush and against Clinton.

No.. I'm not biased at all.. Bush was an idiot.. however .. you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing... but whatever..

Opinion: mini-bush was the worst leader this country has ever had. Daddy Bush was the most mediocre leader this country has ever had. Clinton was one of the best leaders this nation has ever had. He replaced JFK as the icon that modern Democrats strive to emulate...that is not an easy task. Too bad Republicans can't find a rival for Reagan.

Again - you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing...

Face it - you're a partisan hack... you can't see the wrong in a leader regardless of political party.. just admit it and you'll feel better...

You are trying to spin it any way you can. The bottom line is doing NOTHING is a lack of leadership...and that is EXACTLY what Bush did - nothing. Clinton and Bush SHARE responsibility for it....and it happened under Bush's watch and as a 'leader' he 'should' take the responsibility himself. But, as a failed leader, he would never do that.

You are just as partisan as anybody else...the difference is you try to spin your way out of it. But, when things like this come up where even YOU say that it's a "leadership thing" but fail to admit how poorly W performed as a 'leader'...until it is pointed out And, you end up contradicting yourself by first saying, "Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse." Then, just a few sentences later, you admit Bush shares the blame. You can't see how bias that is because you ignore one half of the equation because it does not fit in your rhetoric of Clinton as a leader? Before you start accusing others of being partisan, maybe you should stop acting like that yourself.

Actually.. Clinton, Bush and multiple Congresses share the blame, but you don't care about Congress cause yer too wrapped up in your hate for anything that isn't Democrat...

Its spin if I say Bush is culpable.. and if you say he is its "FACT"..... lmao..

pull your head out... or better yet.. leave it in.. and breathe deeply.. you obviously like the smell....

Oh, so now that you lost the "leadership" battle, you want to do more misdirection and point to Congress, which we was not even part of discussing the "leadership" of the various recent Presidents.

Of course congress shares some of the blame. So do greedy banks who were making loans that they KNEW were going to fail. So do all of the various traders who sold and bought and resold the crap loans. So do the idiot consumers who accepted those loans when they knew they couldn't afford them. Anybody else? How about realtors who KNEW the houses they were selling were way over valued and pushed buyers into loans they couldn't afford?

Actually, I think it's the work of ancient aliens. What kind technology would it take to dumb down the entire population and leadership of a world so much that it caused the world economy to collapse under the weight of the collective stupidity of the population. Only ancient aliens would have the technology to genetically manipulate the population to forget that if they borrow money for a house they would have to pay it back, that if a person can't pay a loan back then they shouldn't get a loan, if a loan is not going to be paid off, it is not worth buying or selling...Only ancient could create such stupidity...it just can't happen naturally.

[RossValoryRocks]

The First Amendment to the United States Consititution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Those who think that forcing the Catholic Church to go against is beliefs and have them be FORCED by law to provide birth control is ok, let me ask a simple question: What part of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you just not get?
No one, not ONE person is trying to keep women from going an buying condoms, IUD's, diaphrams, the pill or even the morning after pill and using them as they so desire. The whole rub is that the Government is NOT ALLOWED, EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by the VERY FIRST and arguably MOST IMPORTANT of the Amendements from doing so. Is the language in the Amendement THAT hard to understand?? Seriously?

[slucero]

FACT: YOU said, "\Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse."

I did and its a fact. Most economists point to that legislation as the starting point for the 2008 collapse...

FACT: I did NOT say you defended Bush, but was responding to your statement I quoted above by stating the below facts:

FACT: Bush had YEARS to do something about the deregulation of banks and chose to do nothing...THAT is a demostrated lack of leadership. Signing a bill is NOT a demonstrated lack of leadership.

Clinton studied economics at Oxford.. so signing a bill that repeals an existing Act that came about as a result of an Congressional investigation into the cause of a economic collapse - when there was clear empirical evidence that the some conditions would have the same results... is a monstrous demonstration of a lack of leadership, and also a validation of Einsteins Theory of Insanity...

Obama even challenged the act and that it led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of something banned since the Great Depression.



FACT: By Bush NOT doing anything about deregulation for YEARS shows that he shares in the blame for the collapse

Never said he didn't.. and I agree he shares the blame... as does Congress

FACT: Your inability to recognize the above fact shows your bias towards Bush and against Clinton.

No.. I'm not biased at all.. Bush was an idiot.. however .. you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing... but whatever..

Opinion: mini-bush was the worst leader this country has ever had. Daddy Bush was the most mediocre leader this country has ever had. Clinton was one of the best leaders this nation has ever had. He replaced JFK as the icon that modern Democrats strive to emulate...that is not an easy task. Too bad Republicans can't find a rival for Reagan.

Again - you wish to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing.. when it's clearly a leadership thing...

Face it - you're a partisan hack... you can't see the wrong in a leader regardless of political party.. just admit it and you'll feel better...

You are trying to spin it any way you can. The bottom line is doing NOTHING is a lack of leadership...and that is EXACTLY what Bush did - nothing. Clinton and Bush SHARE responsibility for it....and it happened under Bush's watch and as a 'leader' he 'should' take the responsibility himself. But, as a failed leader, he would never do that.

You are just as partisan as anybody else...the difference is you try to spin your way out of it. But, when things like this come up where even YOU say that it's a "leadership thing" but fail to admit how poorly W performed as a 'leader'...until it is pointed out And, you end up contradicting yourself by first saying, "Clinton (and Congress) is directly responsible for the banking collapse." Then, just a few sentences later, you admit Bush shares the blame. You can't see how bias that is because you ignore one half of the equation because it does not fit in your rhetoric of Clinton as a leader? Before you start accusing others of being partisan, maybe you should stop acting like that yourself.

Actually.. Clinton, Bush and multiple Congresses share the blame, but you don't care about Congress cause yer too wrapped up in your hate for anything that isn't Democrat...

Its spin if I say Bush is culpable.. and if you say he is its "FACT"..... lmao..

pull your head out... or better yet.. leave it in.. and breathe deeply.. you obviously like the smell....

Oh, so now that you lost the "leadership" battle, you want to do more misdirection and point to Congress, which we was not even part of discussing the "leadership" of the various recent Presidents.

Of course congress shares some of the blame. So do greedy banks who were making loans that they KNEW were going to fail. So do all of the various traders who sold and bought and resold the crap loans. So do the idiot consumers who accepted those loans when they knew they couldn't afford them. Anybody else? How about realtors who KNEW the houses they were selling were way over valued and pushed buyers into loans they couldn't afford?

Actually, I think it's the work of ancient aliens. What kind technology would it take to dumb down the entire population and leadership of a world so much that it caused the world economy to collapse under the weight of the collective stupidity of the population. Only ancient aliens would have the technology to genetically manipulate the population to forget that if they borrow money for a house they would have to pay it back, that if a person can't pay a loan back then they shouldn't get a loan, if a loan is not going to be paid off, it is not worth buying or selling...Only ancient could create such stupidity...it just can't happen naturally.

I think the "PWNED" on the previous page would indicate who lost...


Had Glass-Steagal not been repealed

• the groundwork for the bank malfeasance would not have existed
• the bundled securities (crap loans) wouldnot have existed
• the idiot consumers who accepted those loans when they knew they couldn't afford them, would still exist, but the loans would not

The source of this?

The Congress that passed the bill and the President who signed it into law.


Dictionary.com defines "leadership" as follows:

lead·er·ship [lee-der-ship]
noun

1. the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group: He managed to maintain his leadership of the party despite heavy opposition. Synonyms: administration, management, directorship, control, governorship, stewardship, hegemony.
2. ability to lead: As early as sixth grade she displayed remarkable leadership potential. Synonyms: authoritativeness, influence, command, effectiveness; sway, clout.
3. an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction: They prospered under his strong leadership.
4. the leaders of a group: The union leadership agreed to arbitrate.

by their actions... they "lead" us... and as a consequence of those actions, i.e., that "leadership".... look where we are today...

They KNEW what would happen if they repealed Glass-Stegal... but they did it anyways...

Call it whatever the fuck you want till your nuts fall off your chin....

I call it a lack of leadership...

[Monker]

by their actions... they "lead" us...

EXACTLY what I have been saying. Creating and signing a bill is NOT a 'lack of leadership'. Failing to do something about it is.

[Monker]

The First Amendment to the United States Consititution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those who think that forcing the Catholic Church to go against is beliefs and have them be FORCED by law to provide birth control is ok, let me ask a simple question: What part of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you just not get?

How does what is in a person's health insurance coverage stop that person from practicing their religion? Are Catholics who are not employed by the Catholic church not able to practice their religion if their health insurance covers contraception?

I guess the church just doesn't have faith that Catholics can control themselves sexually...and there is a lot of evidence of that fact so maybe they're right.

It may be offensive to the Catholic church and not a good political idea...but it is not unconstitutional in any way...nobody is forcing the church to hand out condoms.

[Rick]

The First Amendment to the United States Consititution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those who think that forcing the Catholic Church to go against is beliefs and have them be FORCED by law to provide birth control is ok, let me ask a simple question: What part of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you just not get?

How does what is in a person's health insurance coverage stop that person from practicing their religion? Are Catholics who are not employed by the Catholic church not able to practice their religion if their health insurance covers contraception?

I guess the church just doesn't have faith that Catholics can control themselves sexually...and there is a lot of evidence of that fact so maybe they're right.

It may be offensive to the Catholic church and not a good political idea...but it is not unconstitutional in any way...nobody is forcing the church to hand out condoms.

Would this be in place of that tasteless cracker?

[RossValoryRocks]

The First Amendment to the United States Consititution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those who think that forcing the Catholic Church to go against is beliefs and have them be FORCED by law to provide birth control is ok, let me ask a simple question: What part of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you just not get?

How does what is in a person's health insurance coverage stop that person from practicing their religion? Are Catholics who are not employed by the Catholic church not able to practice their religion if their health insurance covers contraception?

I guess the church just doesn't have faith that Catholics can control themselves sexually...and there is a lot of evidence of that fact so maybe they're right.

It may be offensive to the Catholic church and not a good political idea...but it is not unconstitutional in any way...nobody is forcing the church to hand out condoms.

EVERY lawyer I have spoke too (I know quite a few (left and right leaning), including a retired PA Supreme Court Judge, and 2 retired Federal Magistrates) has said in no uncertain terms this is completely unconsititutional. Again..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Forcing the Catholic Church (Which SELF INSURES) to provide for their employees to receive birth control is prohibiting the free execise of religion.

[Monker]

The First Amendment to the United States Consititution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Those who think that forcing the Catholic Church to go against is beliefs and have them be FORCED by law to provide birth control is ok, let me ask a simple question: What part of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" do you just not get?

How does what is in a person's health insurance coverage stop that person from practicing their religion? Are Catholics who are not employed by the Catholic church not able to practice their religion if their health insurance covers contraception?

I guess the church just doesn't have faith that Catholics can control themselves sexually...and there is a lot of evidence of that fact so maybe they're right.

It may be offensive to the Catholic church and not a good political idea...but it is not unconstitutional in any way...nobody is forcing the church to hand out condoms.

EVERY lawyer I have spoke too (I know quite a few (left and right leaning), including a retired PA Supreme Court Judge, and 2 retired Federal Magistrates) has said in no uncertain terms this is completely unconsititutional. Again..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Forcing the Catholic Church (Which SELF INSURES) to provide for their employees to receive birth control is prohibiting the free execise of religion.

Well, thank you for completely avoiding answering the question.

How does health insurance stop anybody from practicing their religion?