President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

by **conversationpc** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:48 am

Seven Wishes wrote:As part of Legislation to Raise Debt Ceiling, Should Congress and the President Raise Taxes on Americans making more than $1,000,000?

Yep, it also helps to play on the wealth envy in this country. Works every time.

by **Seven Wishes2** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:12 am

That's because the gulf between the middle class and the privileged (a majority of whom, as I have shown before, came from wealthy families) has, thanks to Republican "economic policies," never been so wide or so pronounced.

Oh, and don't forget, Obama didn't get sworn in until late January of 2009.

"According to the Economic Policy Institute, the wealthiest 1% had an average net worth that was 225 greater than the average American. That's higher than the previous record, which was 190 times in 2004.

An intriguing aspect of the divide is that it occurred while the wealth of all Americans declined on average. The richest households lost 27% of their wealth between 2007 and 2009, while middle class Americans lost 47% of their wealth during the same time period. So, the growth in the gap was mainly due to the fact that the middle class and poor suffered more during the recent recession than the wealthy. "

http://g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/topincomes/

Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.

by **Seven Wishes2** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:19 pm

What's even more astonishing is that it is literally illegal to cut benefits to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as a method of eliminating deficits:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_20_20_I.html

I love watching the GOP crumble apart like a three-year-old Little Debbie. They know they have no plan, no ideas, nothing to stand on, and were dead wrong to even politicize the debt ceiling in the first place. And that dimwit Eric Cantor is literally the mouthpiece, the marionette of the clueless and economically challenged Tea Party. He is going to cost the Republicans the White House, and possibly the Senate, in 2012...unless the spineless Obama acquiesces.

by **Seven Wishes2** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:41 pm

This gets better by the minute. Huge, HUGE expo piece website here. Turns out all those anti-worker, pro-corporate bills introduced by the Tea Baggers in 2010 are all crafted by a nefarious organization which conceals its membership:

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

I wonder if this, or the implosion of the Murdoch empire, will be more of a blow to Republicans in 2012?

by **Gin and Tonic Sky** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:39 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:That's because the gulf between the middle class and the privileged (a majority of whom, as I have shown before, came from wealthy families) has, thanks to Republican "economic policies," never been so wide or so pronounced.

Oh, and don't forget, Obama didn't get sworn in until late January of 2009.

"According to the Economic Policy Institute, the wealthiest 1% had an average net worth that was 225 greater than the average American. That's higher than the previous record, which was 190 times in 2004.

An intriguing aspect of the divide is that it occurred while the wealth of all Americans declined on average. The richest households lost 27% of their wealth between 2007 and 2009, while middle class Americans lost 47% of their wealth during the same time period. So, the growth in the gap was mainly due to the fact that the middle class and poor suffered more during the recent recession than the wealthy. "

http://g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/topincomes/

Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.

Ok Seven Wishes, Im willing to agree with you, but I have seven questions first:
1. The measures of inequalities that you cite all take their measures from pretax incomes, and they dont take account high redistributive taxes (its all on pretax figures) – the rich also pay a higher percentage of taxes? Are these measures of inequality the same after redistributive taxes?
2. Also if the richest do pay a higher percentage of taxes, wouldn’t you want more inequality- the more weatlh concentrated at the top the more you can tax and redistribute ?!
3. The Gini co-efficient (the widest accepted measure of income inequality of the US is 40. Mongolia Ethopia and Yemen and a number of third world all have lower GINI coefficients (more equal incomes) . Would you rather try to make a living in the US or Ethopia .
4. Or to put the above question in other terms: would you rather go to a picnic where 1) some glutton gets ten hamburgers, the majority of people three or four, and a few people just one or two- or 2) would you rather go to a picnic where everybody just gets one bite out of one single hamburger?
5. How do measures of income mobility compare to measures of income inequality. If inequality is so important why does the US compare significantly better than countries with a higher income inequality in terms of social mobility
6. If some inequality is the measure of an immoral system, why aren’t we also criticizing France. They have a supposedly higher level of income equality and all sorts of state support - yet half the suburbs of Paris get regularily set alight when the underprivileged folks riot.
7. What Rebublican policies are supposedly responsible for this. Every single republican and democratic president has supported the SAME welfare state and massive transfer payments and government in support of minorities (without it ever really being cut) - the kind of policies I think you support? Yet blacks and American Indians suffer highest levels of unemployment and social deprivation. Isn’t the problem the state and its spending –whether its run by a donkey or an elephant ?

by **Seven Wishes2** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:20 am

Way to respond to yet another post with a complete absence of facts and attempt to divert the conversation...AGAIN.

You're not even worth the time. I've proven the facts. You've used factually untrue Faux GOP talking points. Have a good afternoon, schmutz.

by **Rick** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:58 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Way to respond to yet another post with a complete absence of facts and attempt to divert the conversation...AGAIN.

You're not even worth the time. I've proven the facts. You've used factually untrue Faux GOP talking points. Have a good afternoon, schmutz.

I love the Yiddish swear words.

by **Gin and Tonic Sky** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:25 am

Rick wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:Way to respond to yet another post with a complete absence of facts and attempt to divert the conversation...AGAIN.

You're not even worth the time. I've proven the facts. You've used factually untrue Faux GOP talking points. Have a good afternoon, schmutz.

I love the Yiddish swear words.

heres a few more for your persual. See if you can work em into converation!

shvants - asshole
Shmok - dick/jerk
Klafte - bitch
Shandhoiz - Whore house
Fortz - Fart
Momzer - Bastard
Nebish - Little nerd; a loser
Moyshe Pupik - A jerk
Tochus leker - A brown-noser, ass kisser
Kish m'in toukhes - Kiss my ass
Dreck - Shit, filth
Shtup - Fuck
Tokhes - Ass
Mishugena - Freak
Putznasher - Dick sucker
Trichen ah furtz - Dried old fart
Kaker punum - Shit face
Schlemiel - Retard
Pierick - ****
Tuches arine - Up your ass
Kish mine tuches - Kiss my ass
Nafke - Whore
Stup ir - Fuck you
Kush in toches arein - Kiss my ass
Shtik drek- Piece of shit
Kucker - Shit head

by **conversationpc** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:09 am

Fact Finder wrote:

Well, you know that Gallup is just in the pocket of the Republicans just like Rasmussen, don't you??? :lol:

by **Seven Wishes2** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:44 am

You guys are a trip.

Only one in five people want to help the economy by not raising taxes at least somewhat.

Dufuses.

I never ONCE said any of this should be happening without budget cuts. Doesn't change the fact that four out of five Americans think the two of you are full of shit.

by **conversationpc** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:51 am

Seven Wishes wrote:You guys are a trip.

Only one in five people want to help the economy by not raising taxes at least somewhat.

Dufuses.

I never ONCE said any of this should be happening without budget cuts. Doesn't change the fact that four out of five Americans think the two of you are full of shit.

by **RedWingFan** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:59 am

Fact Finder wrote:So Obama just said that 80% of Americans want tax increases as part of the solution to the current problems. Him and 7 must be in the same universe.

I was thinking it was discussed during the small talk while in the same bed during the afterglow. :lol:

by **Saint John** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:14 pm

Just end almost all entitlements. Keep them going for those deserving, like retards, veterans and the handicapped. The rest? Fuck 'em.

The rich pay far too much in taxes already. Even a half percent more would be criminal. Everyone on the left preaches equality. Cool ... let's do it. Make the tax rate the same for everyone. I just don't see the logic or ethics in making those that succeed pay more then those that are dependent failures. Seems very un-American to me. I would actually want my taxes raised, rather than see the wealthy pay more. It just ain't right. And I'll gladly disclose that I don't even make 50k. But I'm not a deadbeat loser with a bunch of kids, vices and/or the desire to just sit on my ass and not work. Well, I do gamble way more than I should. :lol:

by **slucero** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:32 pm

JFK didn't believe in it either...

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other, it is increasingly clear that...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

by **Seven Wishes2** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:50 pm

Kennedy would have NEVER sanctioned neo-Keynsian supply-side conservative economic principles, either. The marginal tax rate for the richest Americans was reduced from 90% to 70% under JFK. However, with tax rates at their highest, the economy peaked in the 50's.

GDP growth reached its highest level since the Kennedy years under Clinton. Real GDP grew just 13.36% from 2001 to 2009, and the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues over what they would have been had the tax cuts not been enacted:

http://www.econdataus.com/recgro8y.html

by **Saint John** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:14 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:
GDP growth reached its highest level since the Kennedy years under Clinton.

But didn't this have a lot to do with the tech bubble? You know, Clinton's appointees letting everyone and their uncle cook the books and lie, cheat and steal. President Bush had to clean up that mess ... and it wasn't the only one Clinton left him. That dude named bin laden went on to create a mess, too. But president Obama's "cowboy diplomacy" took care of that sand nigger. You know, entering a sovereign and nuclear nation without their consent, and threatening world peace! Oh ... that's just the way it would have been viewed if former president George W Bush were in office. :wink:

For the record, I am 100% with president Obama on that decision. We don't ask anyone for permission, we don't give a fuck what those fags in Europe think and we don't cater to smelly fucks like Pakistan. Dear Pakistan, suck our non-turmeric smelling American cocks. We'll enter your country whenever the fuck we want. Love, The U.S.A.

by **slucero** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:18 pm

Saint John wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:
GDP growth reached its highest level since the Kennedy years under Clinton.

But didn't this have a lot to do with the tech bubble? You know, Clinton's appointees letting everyone and their uncle cook the books and lie, cheat and steal. President Bush had to clean up that mess ... and it wasn't the only one Clinton left him. That dude named bin laden went on to create a mess, too. But president Obama's "cowboy diplomacy" took care of that sand nigger. You know, entering a sovereign and nuclear nation without their consent, and threatening world peace! Oh ... that's just the way it would have been viewed if former president George W Bush were in office. For the record, I am 100% with president Obama on that decision. We don't ask anyone for permission, we don't give a fuck what those fags in Europe think and we don't cater to smelly fucks like Pakistan. Dear Pakistan, suck our non-turmeric smelling American cocks. We'll enter your country whenever the fuck we want. Love, The U.S.A.

That worked real well in 'Nam...

by **Saint John** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:28 pm

slucero wrote:
Saint John wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:
GDP growth reached its highest level since the Kennedy years under Clinton.

But didn't this have a lot to do with the tech bubble? You know, Clinton's appointees letting everyone and their uncle cook the books and lie, cheat and steal. President Bush had to clean up that mess ... and it wasn't the only one Clinton left him. That dude named bin laden went on to create a mess, too. But president Obama's "cowboy diplomacy" took care of that sand nigger. You know, entering a sovereign and nuclear nation without their consent, and threatening world peace! Oh ... that's just the way it would have been viewed if former president George W Bush were in office. For the record, I am 100% with president Obama on that decision. We don't ask anyone for permission, we don't give a fuck what those fags in Europe think and we don't cater to smelly fucks like Pakistan. Dear Pakistan, suck our non-turmeric smelling American cocks. We'll enter your country whenever the fuck we want. Love, The U.S.A.

That worked real well in 'Nam...

Valid point, for sure.

by **Seven Wishes2** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:19 pm

'We did NOT lose Vietnam. It was a tie!'

http://www.hark.com/clips/jcddbqpbzh-vietnam

by **Saint John** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:32 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:'We did NOT lose Vietnam. It was a tie!'

http://www.hark.com/clips/jcddbqpbzh-vietnam

by **The_Noble_Cause** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:53 am

Looks like the Murdoch media empire is crumbling, and being exposed as the criminal syndicate it really is. Seems far far more troubling than Dan Rather and a handful of forged National Guard documents. Strange that Fox News has yet to report on this. :roll:

by **Memorex** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:27 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Looks like the Murdoch media empire is crumbling, and being exposed as the criminal syndicate it really is. Seems far far more troubling than Dan Rather and a handful of forged National Guard documents. Strange that Fox News has yet to report on this.

Fox has had many reports on this. CNN is making it their constant top story. CNN is hoping, eh?

by **Seven Wishes2** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:41 am

Since Faux is a disinfotainment network, aren't they except from the American Media Standard Practices clause?

by **slucero** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:57 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Since Faux is a disinfotainment network, aren't they except from the American Media Standard Practices clause?

no more (or less) than any of the other mainstream disinformation services... they all skew their reporting..

by **Seven Wishes2** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:08 am

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The disjointed and clueless Democrats don't have a coherent message, anyway. MSNBC engages in political advocacy with their left-slanted evening lineup, but they still have integrity and are held to basic journalistic principles by the parent company. Fox is unabashedly and unapologetically an endorsement wing of the Republican party.

http://foxnewslies.net/

Politifact has also honored Fox with the Lie of the Year every year since 2004!

by **conversationpc** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:19 am

Seven Wishes wrote:We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The disjointed and clueless Democrats don't have a coherent message, anyway. MSNBC engages in political advocacy with their left-slanted evening lineup, but they still have integrity and are held to basic journalistic principles by the parent company. Fox is unabashedly and unapologetically an endorsement wing of the Republican party.

http://foxnewslies.net/

Politifact has also honored Fox with the Lie of the Year every year since 2004!

Politifact does some good stuff occasionally but they've been a left-leaning organization ever since their inception. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they'd nominate Fox every year.

by **The_Noble_Cause** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:57 am

slucero wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:Since Faux is a disinfotainment network, aren't they except from the American Media Standard Practices clause?

no more (or less) than any of the other mainstream disinformation services... they all skew their reporting..

Bullshit. Fox is run by Nixon's former spin doctor and Rush Limbaugh's former executive producer. CNN may have James Carville giving commentary, but he's not the network CEO. BIG difference. I do agree that all networks are skewed, but it's very rarely a left or right thing.

by **slucero** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:07 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
slucero wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:Since Faux is a disinfotainment network, aren't they except from the American Media Standard Practices clause?

no more (or less) than any of the other mainstream disinformation services... they all skew their reporting..

Bullshit. Fox is run by Nixon's former spin doctor and Rush Limbaugh's former executive producer. CNN may have James Carville giving commentary, but he's not the network CEO. BIG difference. I do agree that all networks are skewed, but it's very rarely a left or right thing.

Make up your mind.. either they are or they aren't...

by **Memorex** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:27 pm

slucero wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
slucero wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:Since Faux is a disinfotainment network, aren't they except from the American Media Standard Practices clause?

no more (or less) than any of the other mainstream disinformation services... they all skew their reporting..

Bullshit. Fox is run by Nixon's former spin doctor and Rush Limbaugh's former executive producer. CNN may have James Carville giving commentary, but he's not the network CEO. BIG difference. I do agree that all networks are skewed, but it's very rarely a left or right thing.

Make up your mind.. either they are or they aren't...

I find it very difficult these days to find any source of news that is straight up. I always feel like I am being nudged in one direction or another. It's annoying.

by **Monker** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:19 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The disjointed and clueless Democrats don't have a coherent message, anyway. MSNBC engages in political advocacy with their left-slanted evening lineup, but they still have integrity and are held to basic journalistic principles by the parent company. Fox is unabashedly and unapologetically an endorsement wing of the Republican party.

http://foxnewslies.net/

Politifact has also honored Fox with the Lie of the Year every year since 2004!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqA8oxY6aao

MR

President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

Who is online