President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Memorex]

I have a question. I am by no means a birther. I also believe that if someone was able to be elected president, legal or not, the people spoke and that's that. Drop it. BUT... I am just 5 years younger than Obama. Admittedly, he has accomplished a little more than I have. But I assume along the way he has faced many of the same "requirements" as me when getting a job, a driver's license, etc. In the last 6 months, I had to present my official birth certificate on 3 different occasions. The first was a pain in the ass because I had lost mine and had to pay $26 plus overnight shipping costs to get another one. So my question is - how does a person get to be 49 without having to have his birth certificate available here or there?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833

Edit: That website is out to get him, it seems. So consider the source.

[Memorex]

I'd say someone is a little bitter that Hilary did not win. It's a little unnerving that people like this get close to the President. But I guess with a huge staff, there are bound to be some disloyal people. I could honeslty say that I would be way too paranoid to be President.

http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/white-house-insider-obama-celebrates-shortly-after-delivering-tucson-memorial-speech/

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Good grief, dodo, I'm talking about Rick Perry, Governor of TX, not Steve Perry. I thought about clarifying that but I figured anyone who kind of keeps up with things would know who I was speaking of... Did you not read my entire post? Probably not, lol...

Considering he quoted the very beginning and the very end of your post, I'm gonna guess that he also read the middle, and that his post is pure satire. It is you who is the fucking "dodo."

Yes indeed - I was being silly, I kind of thought thats what this board was all about instead of gettng way too serious arguing about politics and calling each other names.


Now If you want a serious prediction, if 2012 is appears winnable for the GOP (thats still a big if) either Rick Perry or John Thune (SD) will seek and win the GOP nomination. If not they will wait for 2016 and let the GOP get the others out of their system.

[fredinator]

I wish it was fun and lighthearted as you say but when it comes to SPerry or the neocons in this thread, there really is no such thing--just ask that other dodo St John, lol.

Sorry for calling you a dodo if you were kidding with me; I thought you were serious. Mind your own business birdbrain St. John.

[Seven Wishes2]

Just when I was starting to like you, here comes the freight train.

Is isn't going to happen. The increasing popularity of the bill will make it politically impossible for the GOP to "starve" the bill unless they do some major brainwashing.

Wait, I've said too much...it's as good as gone.

[Rockindeano]

HOUSE REPEALS OBAMACARE LAW 245-189



Baby steps...


on to the Senate...do it over and over until it's done right

When you guys can actually present a plan, ANY plan, then maybe we can call it a debate. LOL, you and your ilk can't even come up with a plan...but the more I think about it, that's exactly what you want here...no plan, just repeal it, and fuck the 31 million without insurance. Am I right? Of course I am.

[Rockindeano]

Repeal bill passed with more votes than the passage of the original bill last Christmas Eve...the people have spoken.


If the Senate don't like fuck 'em, the House controls the money and damnit we can defund it if necessary. No money no Obamacare.

What a shitty attitude. You want to play that game, the Senate Controlled Dems can certainly do so, as can the president of the United States. Do us and the country a favor, and just go to Hell GOP. if their attitude is like yours FF, then fuck civility, let's brawl.

And if you assholes won't fund the LAW, then maybe Dems can just not fund your baby projects either.

[slucero]

[Seven Wishes2]

In both cases it fell totally along party lines, proving that Obamacare is a one party law at this time. Name one piece of MAJOR legislation passed in the last 100 years that had so total one party support. I'm with Dave that pieces of this shit will remain, but the damned Pubbies better fix a lot of shit in that law and now is the time.

But this was a Republican idea! This was THEIR idea! In fact, it's just LESS liberal than the one first put forth by the GOP in 2003!!! IT'S YOUR FUCKING PLAN, just MORE conservatively tailored because the Dems HAD to compromise to get ANYTHING passed! The ONLY reason you don't like it is because the Democrats pushed it through! But it was YOUR idea! It only became a "piece of shit" when the left attached themselves to it!

Aaaaaaaarrrgh!!!!!!!

[Rockindeano]

In both cases it fell totally along party lines, proving that Obamacare is a one party law at this time. Name one piece of MAJOR legislation passed in the last 100 years that had so total one party support. I'm with Dave that pieces of this shit will remain, but the damned Pubbies better fix a lot of shit in that law and now is the time.

But this was a Republican idea! This was THEIR idea! In fact, it's just LESS liberal than the one first put forth by the GOP in 2003!!! IT'S YOUR FUCKING PLAN, just MORE conservatively tailored because the Dems HAD to compromise to get ANYTHING passed! The ONLY reason you don't like it is because the Democrats pushed it through! But it was YOUR idea! It only became a "piece of shit" when the left attached themselves to it!

Aaaaaaaarrrgh!!!!!!!

I hear crickets. It was their plan...LOL, this "piece of shit" was the GOP idea. Too funny.

[slucero]

both parties have been trying to "reform" healthcare for nearly 100 years...

Those crickets you hear Deano is actually the air going in one of your ears and out the other..

[Rockindeano]

That list of GOP desired cuts is shameful. There are a ton of very good programs on there, yet you of course want to kill these programs which are of a big help to people.

How about we kill some defense programs?

I hate the GOP even moreso now.

[Rockindeano]

That list of GOP desired cuts is shameful. There are a ton of very good programs on there, yet you of course want to kill these programs which are of a big help to people.

How about we kill some defense programs?

I hate the GOP even moreso now.

Give me a break Dean, that 2.5 trillion is over 10 years or just 250 billion a year, not so much as a dent in the current fiscal climate..we can't sustain this and everyone knows it.

No, you give ME a break. There are some really good worthwhile programs on this list that provide essential services as well as provide jobs. Yes, there a some on here that should and probably will get the axe. but most should stay, and I presume they will. These programs listed by the GOP are services that they don't use nor need. Typical "fuck the people" attitude. When the voters see this list, they will boot these fuckers out faster than they got in, mark my words.

[Monker]

In both cases it fell totally along party lines, proving that Obamacare is a one party law at this time. Name one piece of MAJOR legislation passed in the last 100 years that had so total one party support. I'm with Dave that pieces of this shit will remain, but the damned Pubbies better fix a lot of shit in that law and now is the time.

But this was a Republican idea! This was THEIR idea! In fact, it's just LESS liberal than the one first put forth by the GOP in 2003!!! IT'S YOUR FUCKING PLAN, just MORE conservatively tailored because the Dems HAD to compromise to get ANYTHING passed! The ONLY reason you don't like it is because the Democrats pushed it through! But it was YOUR idea! It only became a "piece of shit" when the left attached themselves to it!

Aaaaaaaarrrgh!!!!!!!

It was until Dole thought he had a shot to beat Clinton and stop supporting the idea because he was becoming a liberal.

I still say if a canidate is not a neo con they can't win the Republican nomination and enough base support to win the Presidency.

[Monker]

That list of GOP desired cuts is shameful. There are a ton of very good programs on there, yet you of course want to kill these programs which are of a big help to people.

How about we kill some defense programs?

I hate the GOP even moreso now.

Give me a break Dean, that 2.5 trillion is over 10 years or just 250 billion a year, not so much as a dent in the current fiscal climate..we can't sustain this and everyone knows it.

No, you give ME a break. There are some really good worthwhile programs on this list that provide essential services as well as provide jobs. Yes, there a some on here that should and probably will get the axe. but most should stay, and I presume they will. These programs listed by the GOP are services that they don't use nor need. Typical "fuck the people" attitude. When the voters see this list, they will boot these fuckers out faster than they got in, mark my words.

Well, I guess the House will just have to pass the spending bill so you can see what's in it...

Here's the problem:

Mr. Bonehead in the House doesn't care about this. He'd rather fight abortion issues. That's his newest top priority. So much for the economy, jobs, and budget...you know, those things that the Tea Party REALLY cared about. Yeah, start the "let's defund abortion" fight instead...and nothing else will get done. Idiots.

[Seven Wishes2]

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/12/republicans_liked_what_they_no.html

...the [individual] mandate was a Republican idea, first offered as an alternative to the Clinton reform and pushed by party leaders such as Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch. It was resurrected by Mitt Romney as part of his reform in Massachusetts. And more recently, it was part of the Wyden-Bennett bill that was supported by many Republicans as an alternative to Obama’s reform. It was only when Obama embraced this approach that Republicans began bleating about the threat to individual liberty.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/laura-chapin/2010/12/17/republicans-are-hypocrites-on-healthcare-invidual-mandate.html

It was the individual mandate that Republicans touted as a "personal responsibility" pushback to President Clinton's healthcare reform efforts in the '90s.

The individual mandate that was backed by Republicans from Richard Nixon to Mitt Romney as a free-market solution to controlling healthcare costs--until it was incorporated into healthcare reform by President Obama.

Or as the AP put it back in May, "Republicans were for the individual mandate before they were against it."

[Seven Wishes2]

I have a fucking idea!!!

ELIMINATE wasteful government military spending! We already spend more on the military per capita than any nation in the world. No more sweetheart deals between the GOP and Halliburton! No more $5,500 hammers! We could save HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR and still not lose ONE INCH militarily.

THAT'S where we start. NOT eliminating some extremely vital and essential programs that THEMSELVES create hundreds of thousands of jobs!!!

Idiots.

http://www.progress.org/2005/tcs182.htm

Of course NO ONE will address my prior post because, once again, it shoots their theories in the foot...you can expect some third-rate blog quote as a retort, as is the standard.

[slucero]

ELIMINATE wasteful government military spending!

I agree - but good luck with that one...

Neither party is really interested in tackling spending... they'd have no "toys" if spending got cut...

[Rockindeano]

I have a fucking idea!!!

ELIMINATE wasteful government military spending! We already spend more on the military per capita than any nation in the world. No more sweetheart deals between the GOP and Halliburton! No more $5,500 hammers! We could save HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR and still not lose ONE INCH militarily.

THAT'S where we start. NOT eliminating some extremely vital and essential programs that THEMSELVES create hundreds of thousands of jobs!!!

Idiots.

http://www.progress.org/2005/tcs182.htm

Of course NO ONE will address my prior post because, once again, it shoots their theories in the foot...you can expect some third-rate blog quote as a retort, as is the standard.

The argument from the Right will be that Military spending is protected, as it is one of the few expenditures that the Constitution protects.

Look at this. A single B2 Bomber costs roughly 2.87 billion, that's a B folks....billion dollars. The ENTIRE Amtrak system, costs 1.5 billion to operate...this includes operating money as well as capital(maintenance and purchasing). it's no secret here, that I am a big pro rail guy. I believe spending on not only interstate passenger rail(Amtrak), but also investment in true high speed rail(CA and FL) are going to build 220 mph trains, as well as light rail in cities. Three decades ago, every big city tore up their street trackage and eliminated all their trolley's and trains. Oops, now, almost every city has built new light rail because of the obvious benefits it brings. Can every city be wrong? No. the GOP is way off the mark regarding rail. They don't like it, because it challenges the automoblie, which consumes, you guessed it, oil, gas, a GOP favourite. LOL. Anyway-

So let me ask you Cons this. Is a single B2 Bomber, (costs are cited as between 1.6 - 2.5 Billion each, but research now has each bird costing 2.87 Billion.), worth more than a 22,000 mile rail network, serving over 500 cities in 46 states, and oh yeah, the countries 5th largest passenger carrier at 27 million riders. Well?

I am sure FF, RWF and Slucero absolutely think the B2 is the more worthwhile expenditure. Let's not forget Amtrak's 18,000 employees, and it's contribution to society. What's the B2 contribute? Ok, it takes an army to build it, and it's parts. Northrup Grumman employs workers to build the damned thing, and that's good for society. But do you really think the number of workers pump more money into the US economy than the Amtrak employees? I am serious here, 2.87 billion dollars for ONE plane, versus 1,5 billion for an entire passenger rail network?

Amtrak is cash starved. No new equipment. No money to add capacity. can you imagine what could be if this backasswards Congress would actually seriously invest in Amtrak? Just the mere fact of adding cars to each already existent train would increase passenger loads exponentially. It's really sad to see France, UK, Japan, and now China far exceed us in this mode of transportation. Now before FF and RWF tells us how shitty Amtrak is, ask the folks who live in the only places where the railroad is adequately funded- The Northeast Corridor and the California Corridors. In the NEC, where 7 Wishes, Nora and JFB live, I would love to hear their takes on it. Between Washington DC and Boston, Amtrak owns the market. They carry more, much more passengers than any airline up there. The smoke AA, US Airways, Continental, all of them. Acela, the 150 mph train is actually faster for DC to NY and DC to Philly(downtown to downtown). No taking off shoes, not security bullshit. Just fast, super fast and reliable all weather transportation. Guess what, the NEC is funded(more than the rest of the entire country), and it shows. Amtrak is the major mover in the NEC.

In Caifornia, the San Diego-LA-and Central Coast corridors carry millions per year. Not high speed like the NEC, the 79 mph trains run at capacity. the taxpayers voted for it, the penny gas tax, and now that it has been adequately funded, it kicks ass. The same exact thing between San Jose-Okland and Sacramento happens each day too. Taxation, adequate funding=major success.

My point is, besides one fucking bomber plane that military wackos get hard ons for and jackoff too, is NOT worth more than a Govt program that provides essential service to a country of 300 million. yes, I know the plane is important too, but surely, can we not afford to defend ourselves with one less plane?

I am really interested to hear FF, RWF and Sluceros comments on this....Stu too.

And when we're done with Amtrak, we can debate the real next big issue. High Speed Rail. You Cons hate that. I wonder why?

I am being serious here, and welcome a good, well spoken debate.

PS- Before any of you say, "Privatize it," remember this- NO Passenger rail system in the world makes money. No where. For that matter, and it's a different debate altogether, it can be argued that no airline truly makes money either, if it weren't for Gov't funded airports, traffic controllers and the like, airlines could not offer fares like they do today. The fares would quadruple at minimum, and we would soon see a Gov't run airline system, much like Amtrak. Oh, and last time I checked, NO highways make money either. The moral of the story here? It's another debate entirely, but it is also one example of a necessary Gov't intervention/expenditure.

[donnaplease]

While I'm in favor of the repeal, if the republicans don't get on the fast track for some jobs creation talk, they're gonna be in trouble with the American people... They keep saying that we put them there to repeal HC, but I think jobs are equally (if not more) important to the people right now.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

I have a fucking idea!!!

ELIMINATE wasteful government military spending! We already spend more on the military per capita than any nation in the world. No more sweetheart deals between the GOP and Halliburton! No more $5,500 hammers! We could save HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR and still not lose ONE INCH militarily.

THAT'S where we start. NOT eliminating some extremely vital and essential programs that THEMSELVES create hundreds of thousands of jobs!!!

Idiots.

http://www.progress.org/2005/tcs182.htm

Of course NO ONE will address my prior post because, once again, it shoots their theories in the foot...you can expect some third-rate blog quote as a retort, as is the standard.

Agreed, military spending ought to be cut. In saying that its worth pointing out that real believers in capitalism, individual liberty, and free markets (not the mainstream GOP who merely talk the talk) argue that War (and all the spending needed to provide for war) is nothing but the health of an oppressive state. Yes, some military - strong enough to defend against external threats is important (and is Constitutional), but anyone who tells you we can't cut some defense spending is just plain wrong, or is a cheerleader for a bigger oppressive govt

But I also disagree with you about those so called "extremely vital and essential programs". No government spending- whether its military spending or social spending creates jobs or promotes economic growth. Government spending, because it needs to be financed, paid for, and becomes subject to inefficient choices and red tape, actually takes capacity out of the private sector.

Cut both areas and I'd add to the list- axe the Dept of Education, privatise most of the VA and let the DoD run whats left, and cut the IRS by 50%.

[conversationpc]

It's official! God is a conservative...

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.

Ecclesiastes 10:2

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Let's not forget Amtrak's 18,000 employees, and it's contribution to society. What's the B2 contribute? Ok, it takes an army to build it, and it's parts. Northrup Grumman employs workers to build the damned thing, and that's good for society. But do you really think the number of workers pump more money into the US economy than the Amtrak employees? I am serious here, 2.87 billion dollars for ONE plane, versus 1,5 billion for an entire passenger rail network?

The answer is neither of these efforts have a net positive effect the economy over an above what that combinded 3.12 billion would have had that money stayed in the private sector. If the financeers that lent the govt money for these two projects hadn't had a willing customer in the government they would have had to go find other customers - folks in the private sector to fund. Those in the private sector who took that money would have taken the money and made wise investment courses - ones which expanded their buinesses, creating jobs . And would have done it without alot of waste and inefficiency along the way. Add to that they wouldn't have to have the burdens for paying for thaty 3.12 expendure through high tax rates.

Now Im not saying the govt doesn't need bombers, or that it shouldn't build highways or railroads- just that the effect isn't the NET level of economic growth all you cheerleaders for big govt spending think it is.

[Melissa]

How about adding the cut off of Medicaid to people who are abusing the HELL out of that system. It's really impossible to explain how out of control that abuse has become unless you work a day in my shoes, or any other healthcare worker who has to deal with Medicaid. It costs the hospitals in this country billions, yes BILLIONS of dollars to take care of Medicaid patients who don't pay a dime. And people bitch and complain and wonder why the costs of healthcare have gone up because the number of people on it keeps increasing and increasing every year. Would you rather all these hospitals shut down and then YOUR access to them is GONE? I just don't understand that attitude, it's ok to want to "spread the wealth", but heaven forbid the bills get spread too Hospitals and doctors are just supposed to keep providing care for free and f*ck THEM for trying to stay in service and keep providing care, right? Such a ridiculous attitude you laymen without a clue have about hospitals, doctors, and the entire healthcare field.

[Rockindeano]

How about adding the cut off of Medicaid to people who are abusing the HELL out of that system. It's really impossible to explain how out of control that abuse has become unless you work a day in my shoes, or any other healthcare worker who has to deal with Medicaid. It costs the hospitals in this country billions, yes BILLIONS of dollars to take care of Medicaid patients who don't pay a dime. And people bitch and complain and wonder why the costs of healthcare have gone up because the number of people on it keeps increasing and increasing every year. Would you rather all these hospitals shut down and then YOUR access to them is GONE? I just don't understand that attitude, it's ok to want to "spread the wealth", but heaven forbid the bills get spread too Hospitals and doctors are just supposed to keep providing care for free and f*ck THEM for trying to stay in service and keep providing care, right? Such a ridiculous attitude you laymen without a clue have about hospitals, doctors, and the entire healthcare field.

1, STOP using asteriks. It's gay. Only RedJoepa13 does that and we all know he is gay. Your BFF Lynn isn't afraid to drop F bombs, neither you should be afraid too.

2- I hear you over and over bitching about abuse. Stop it! .....Because I know you are 100% correct on this, but Mel, you can't legislate morality. There are going to be bad apples in every orchard. And if you start cutting people off the system, eventually a good aple is going to get cut too. I see your point and understand it....but it's so damned hard to enforce it. Do you have any ideas on how we could do it? I would love to hear your take on it.

3- Oh, and the "spreading the wealth" thing has got to stop too. Democrats do spread the wealth...however, so do republicans. When the Republicans give tax cuts to the wealthy, they steal tax revenue from the rest of the country....the rich get their tax cut, the middle and lower class lose out on revenue, and the rich get their money. That too is "spreading the wealth."

Ok, you know I love you MCE, but I have to go to fucking work... . I didn't expect you to respond to my Amtrak/B2 Bomber questions, but I am anxiously awaiting FF, RWF, Sluce and Stu's response. I bet those shitheads are shoulder deep into library research, trying to form an adequate defense of their position.

[Saint John]

When the Republicans give tax cuts to the wealthy, they steal tax revenue from the rest of the country....the rich get their tax cut, the middle and lower class lose out on revenue, and the rich get their money. That too is "spreading the wealth."

The rich already get zinged enough. I just don't see why we can't have the "equality" that democrats are always flapping their gums about. Make the tax code uniform. Stop discriminating. It's simple. 15% across the board. Why do we punish the wealthy and successful? Have they done something wrong? Start punishing the crustaceans of this country ... the bottom-feeding leeches that can't hack it in the world's easiest country to educate, work and prosper. Let them adapt, improvise and overcome ... or die. Shut the fucking doors on them. It's a sin that in this country people need handouts. Unless you're a veteran with physical and/or mental problems, a senior citizen or a retard/handicapped person, you should be out there working and self-sufficient. It ain't hard. But why work when you can get a check from my check (and everyone else that works and makes this country great)? Accountability for self and family first and voluntary accountability for community.

[Melissa]

1, STOP using asteriks. It's gay. Only RedJoepa13 does that and we all know he is gay. Your BFF Lynn isn't afraid to drop F bombs, neither you should be afraid too.

2- I hear you over and over bitching about abuse. Stop it! .....Because I know you are 100% correct on this, but Mel, you can't legislate morality. There are going to be bad apples in every orchard. And if you start cutting people off the system, eventually a good aple is going to get cut too. I see your point and understand it....but it's so damned hard to enforce it. Do you have any ideas on how we could do it? I would love to hear your take on it.

3- Oh, and the "spreading the wealth" thing has got to stop too. Democrats do spread the wealth...however, so do republicans. When the Republicans give tax cuts to the wealthy, they steal tax revenue from the rest of the country....the rich get their tax cut, the middle and lower class lose out on revenue, and the rich get their money. That too is "spreading the wealth."

1) I will not stop using asterisks because it annoys You should have figured that out by now

2) I'm not "bitching" (there, no asterisk, happy? ) anymore than you do. True you can't legislate morality, but enforcing measures harder to make sure the abusers actually qualify would be a step, even though a baby step. Because it works both ways, people who aren't abusing it and do truly need it are starting to get hit with things not being covered BECAUSE Medicaid is starting to crack down a bit, so yes it can be done, and trust me the abusers are starting to get pissed when they have to pay, heaven forbid, $4 for an antibiotic rather than getting it completely FREE. I see this crap every day, you don't.

3) And no, we do not have to stop complaining about the spreading of wealth thing you guys like to push for. Ever hear that phrase that the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of everyone else's money? Hold on, I'll find the email I received to show that point about taxes, and it involves beer, you should love it, lol...

[Melissa]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so...

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Deb]

Look at Smelly gettin' all up in there in the Political thread!

[Melissa]

:lol: Look at Smelly gettin' all up in there in the Political thread!

There's just certain views that get on my nerves, and the whole attitude the Obama sheep have about healthcare is one of them!

And Dan your points are always great. I always find it so funny it's considered "selfish" to want to keep my paycheck, that I worked to earn, to take care of my own kids. Amazing!