President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:23 am

Fact Finder wrote:First off, just because a person makes $250,000 doesn't make him a multi-millionaire, far from it nincompoop. Also, as the following chart will clearly show, it's not a simple (gasp!) 3 percent increase dummy, it's a 9.2% increase on folks in the $175,000 to $375,000 range and a roughly 8.5% increase for folks who make ove $375,000. Get your math straight. From a 33% to 36% tax bracket is a 9.2 % rise, likewise from 35% to 38% is an 8.2% rise. So go right ahead and pick on that "poor multi-millionaire", just remember that the "poor" $250,000 worker has already paid 33%, or roughly $82,000, and you have the gall to ask for $8,000 more. And if that poor sap has the gall to earn over $379,000, you don't think that his paying $132,650 in taxes is enough, you want another $12,000 out of him. Despicable! :evil:

Image


Dipshit. I never said someone making $250,000 a year was a millionaire. Enough with the bait and switch tactics.

And a 3% rate increase is just that. It's only 9% if you're using the denominator as your primary number, which NO ONE does.

Anyway, blather on and on if you will. Yours is the only post today from your side that makes no sense and proves just how full of shit you are.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby iceberg » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:52 am

Saint John wrote:If I hear Obama say "Pay for your fair share" one more time I think I'm gonna puke. How anyone can say that and then pitch higher taxes for the successful people is beyond me. Not only do they "pay their fair share," but they pay almost ALL of the share! But it gets better! That money from those that apparently don't "pay their fair share" will primarily be going directly to the people that ... pay NO share! If taxes need to be raised, and I don't think they do, but let's play along, I have the solution, and it's quite simple. Raise the taxes on the middle class to match that of the wealthy, and end all assistance to the poor (less handicapped, retards and veterans). That way, everyone will be paying their fair share and those that don't will get what they deserve ... nothing! Honestly, and I say this with God (if there is one) as my witness; I would rather pay more in taxes than see those with higher incomes get a tax hike.


yea, it's funny he keeps saying that when 80% of the staff he brought on when elected were all WAY behind on their own taxes.
iceberg
leave me to my raging apathy
User avatar
iceberg
8 Track
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:35 pm
Location: dallas wishing to be in iceland

Postby S2M » Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:09 am

Institute the Fair Tax. EVERYONE pays a 23% sales tax. Even Steven. Quit crying about it.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:17 am

Fact Finder wrote:you said...


Seven Wishes wrote:and those poor multi-millionaires had to pay (gasp) 3 percent higher a tax rate on every dollar they made past $250,000.



that 3 percent (really 8 or 9%) is not on every dollar they made "past" $250,000 though is it? It's 8 or 9% on every fucking dollar starting a $1 then up to and over $250,000. You can spin your bull all day long but the math is the math, and even you can't refute that. If you compute 3% of the current 35% bracket you get...1.05, therefore a 3 percent rise in the bracket would take us from the current 35% to 36.05%. When you say raise it back to the Clinton era 38% , the math tells you that's a 9% rise. So quit spinning the masses.


You really are like Mario Mendoza bringing a whiffle ball bat to face Nolan Ryan, aren't you? All you do is divert the conversation and avoid the facts. Some of your conservative brethren on this board have even said, at the very least, that the ultra-far-right Tea Bagger "don't give an inch" stance is hypocritical. You, on the other hand, continue to let Faux beat off in your mouth.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:47 am

iceberg wrote:yea, it's funny he keeps saying that when 80% of the staff he brought on when elected were all WAY behind on their own taxes.


41 of them to be exact. It's disgusting. Nowhere near 80% (more like 4%) and it should have NOTHING to do with his Administration's initiatives...but there's no defending those assholes.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby slucero » Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:14 pm

looks like the CBO doesn't like the Reid plan...

Reid debt ceiling plan comes up short

By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney July 27, 2011: 11:25 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- First the House debt ceiling bill came up short. Now it's the Senate bill.

The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday said the proposal by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which would raise the debt cap by $2.7 trillion, would reduce deficits by $2.2 trillion.

That means Reid's legislation -- currently the only Democratic alternative to the Republicans' plan -- doesn't meet the GOP demand that spending cuts exceed any increase in the debt ceiling. The public divide between the parties over how to raise the debt ceiling before Aug. 2 was already wide. The CBO report won't narrow it.

The Senate Democratic Leadership Office said the CBO analyzed the bill's "first draft" and that more cuts are planned. "The final version of the Senate plan will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor," according to a statement.

In terms of spending, the CBO estimates that the Reid plan it was given would cut $1.8 trillion.

But that's because the Reid plan takes credit for cutting $1 trillion in war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those savings can only be claimed if one assumes the U.S. engagement there will continue at full throttle for the next decade.

Boehner debt plan: Back to the drawing board

More narrowly, the caps on other discretionary spending would cut $751 billion, plus an estimated $375 billion would be saved on interest owed on the country's debt.

On Tuesday evening, the CBO said it estimated that House Speaker John Boehner's debt ceiling bill would initially reduce deficits by $851 billion over 10 years.
That is less than Boehner's office had originally estimated. Consequently, Boehner is rewriting his debt ceiling legislation to ensure that it meets his oft-stated pledge to cut spending more than Congress increases the federal borrowing limit. Boehner's original bill would have allowed for an immediate debt ceiling increase of $900 billion.

The truth, however, is that neither Reid's bill nor Boehner's currently has a chance of passing both the House and the Senate. That means the two chambers will need to work on a compromise bill. And soon, since there are only 6 days until Aug. 2.

The debt ceiling must be raised by then, when the Treasury Department estimates it will no longer be able to pay all its bills without borrowing.

The House is scheduled to vote on the revised Boehner bill on Thursday at the earliest. It's not clear yet when or if the Senate will vote on Reid's bill.


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:07 am

Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, released a statement last night on just how devastating Speaker John Boehner’s proposed deficit-reduction plan would be for the future of the country.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3548

In particular, Greenstein characterizes the plan’s attack on programs for low- and moderate-income families and retirees as “class warfare.”

The entire statement is well worth reading, but here are the key points worth noting:

The Boehner plan would force policymakers to choose among cutting the incomes and health benefits of ordinary retirees, repealing the guts of health reform and leaving an estimated 34 million more Americans uninsured, and savaging the safety net for the poor.

It would do so even as it shielded all tax breaks, including the many lucrative tax breaks for the wealthiest and most powerful individuals and corporations.


This may sound hyperbolic, but it is not. Both the mathematics and the politics are clear.

■The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, and it then requires additional cuts that are large enough to produce another $1.8 trillion in savings to be enacted by the end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time.
■The Boehner plan envisions no tax increases, with its entire $1.8 trillion in additional deficit reduction coming from budget cuts. Speaker Boehner gave documents to House Republican caucus members stating that the $1.8 trillion would come from “entitlement reforms and savings” and that the plan “includes no tax hikes.” In addition, Speaker Boehner told radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh that Republicans appointed to the special committee that will craft the $1.8 trillion in savings won’t support tax increases and, in the unlikely event that that committee proposed a plan with tax increases, House Republicans would vote it down anyway.[1] A House GOP aide told National Review more bluntly: “We appoint members to the committee, and we’re not appointing any Republicans who will vote for tax hikes.”[2]
■The first round of cuts under the Boehner plan would hit discretionary programs hard through austere discretionary caps that Congress will struggle to meet; discretionary cuts thus will largely or entirely be off the table when it comes to achieving the further $1.8 trillion in budget reductions. As Speaker Boehner’s documents make clear, virtually all of the $1.8 trillion would need to come from cuts in entitlement programs. (Cuts in entitlement spending totaling more than $1.5 trillion would produce sufficient interest savings to achieve $1.8 trillion in total savings.)
■To secure $1.5 trillion in entitlement savings over the next ten years would require draconian policy changes. Policymakers would essentially have three choices: 1) cut Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current retirees, something that all budget plans from both parties (including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan) have ruled out; 2) repeal the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions while retaining its measures that cut Medicare payments and raise tax revenues, even though Republicans seek to repeal many of those measures as well; or 3) eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. There is no other plausible way to get $1.5 trillion in entitlement cuts in the next ten years.
■The evidence for this conclusion is abundant:
■The “Gang of Six” plan, with its very tough and controversial entitlement cuts, contains total entitlement reductions of $640 to $760 billion over the next ten years not counting Social Security, and $755 billion to $875 billion including Social Security. (That’s before netting out $300 billion in entitlement costs that the plan includes for a permanent fix to the scheduled cuts in Medicare physician payments that Congress regularly cancels; with these costs netted out, the Gang of Six entitlement savings come to $455 to $575 billion.)
■The budget deal between President Obama and Speaker Boehner that fell apart last Friday, which included cuts in Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and Medicare benefits as well as an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, contained total entitlement cuts of $650 billion (under the last Obama offer) to $700 billion (under the last Boehner offer).
■The Ryan budget that the House passed in April contained no savings in Social Security over the next ten years and $279 billion in Medicare cuts.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby Gin and Tonic Sky » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:03 am

Given that this thread holds the worlds record for laughable , inane and illogical arguments, I d like to offer this completely hosed up argument. I think for once we can all agree this is a load of illogical horeshit.

See the below , Basically the author of this book argues that Mick Jagger was a conservative because

1- he wanted his wife to wear a bra once
2- he liked soft boiled eggs
3- he served tea in china cups

So lefties never do any of those things, and he's a conservative? LOL

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/jagg ... /id/405204

New Biography: Mick Jagger Closet Conservative


"BackStage Pass VIP," a new Jagger biography being shopped around for a publisher, exposes the Rolling Stones lead singer as a closet conservative who brought his parents flowers during dinner visits and begged his ex-wife, Bianca, to wear a bra under her see-through shirt during a surprise visit from his mother.
"Bianca refused, stormed out and Jagger was left to nervously fix a tray of tea and spread a bunch of pastries on a doily to cater to his mum," writes Debra Sharon Davis. "It is the absolute opposite of everything the public thought they knew about Jagger."

Davis, who traveled with the Rolling Stones to Europe in the 1980s, interviewed everyone from fans to culture commentators to Jagger's bandmates.

Her manuscript includes many never-before-heard stories of icons, from John Lennon to Janis Joplin.

The book also exposes Jagger's conservative subtleties, such as his affinity for eggs served soft boiled in a Wedgewood cup, "which Bianca always seemed to overcook."


Now boys and girls , I wonder if any of you can come up with an argument on this board tonight thats even dumber and and more illogical than this one.
Matt
User avatar
Gin and Tonic Sky
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:46 am
Location: in a purple and gold haze

Postby RedWingFan » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:44 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Wow. The proverbial goose of the GOP is cooked:


http://people-press.org/2011/07/28/obam ... ction-bid/

Obama Loses Ground in 2012 Reelection Bid
In GOP, Romney Leads, Attentive Like Perry, Bachmann Most Visible

Overview

The sizeable lead Barack Obama held over a generic Republican opponent in polls conducted earlier this year has vanished as his support among independent voters has fallen off.Currently, 41% of registered voters say they would like to see Barack Obama reelected, while 40% say they would prefer to see a Republican candidate win in 2012. In May, Obama held an 11-point lead.

This shift is driven by a steep drop-off in support for Obama among independents. The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 20-24 among 1,501 adults and 1,205 registered voters finds that just 31% of independent voters want to see Obama reelected, down from 42% in May and 40% in March. Where Obama held a slim 7-point edge among independent registered voters two months ago, a generic Republican holds an 8-point edge today.

This is consistent with a drop in Obama’s approval among all independents. Currently, a majority (54%) disapprove of Obama’s performance for the first time in his presidency. His approval among independents has slipped to 36% from 42% last month and 49% in late May. (See “Public Wants a Debt Ceiling Compromise, Expects a Deal Before Deadline.”)

Meanwhile, there is no greater clarity to the GOP nomination race. Only about a quarter of voters (24%) have given a lot of thought to their 2012 options. That rises to just 30% among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Overall, Romney continues to hold a significant lead among Republican voters: 21% say they would like to see him win the nomination. Rick Perry gets the support of 12%; 11% back Sarah Palin, 11% Michele Bachmann, 9% Ron Paul and 8% Herman Cain. No other candidate receives more than 3% of the support of Republican-oriented voters. Perry and Palin have not yet said whether they will run.

The race for the support of Tea Party backers is even more up-for-grabs, with five candidates (Romney, Perry, Bachman, Palin and Cain) all garnering the support of between 12% and 16%.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:50 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, released a statement last night on just how devastating Speaker John Boehner’s proposed deficit-reduction plan would be for the future of the country.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3548

In particular, Greenstein characterizes the plan’s attack on programs for low- and moderate-income families and retirees as “class warfare.”

The entire statement is well worth reading, but here are the key points worth noting:

The Boehner plan would force policymakers to choose among cutting the incomes and health benefits of ordinary retirees, repealing the guts of health reform and leaving an estimated 34 million more Americans uninsured, and savaging the safety net for the poor.

It would do so even as it shielded all tax breaks, including the many lucrative tax breaks for the wealthiest and most powerful individuals and corporations.


This may sound hyperbolic, but it is not. Both the mathematics and the politics are clear.

■The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, and it then requires additional cuts that are large enough to produce another $1.8 trillion in savings to be enacted by the end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time.
■The Boehner plan envisions no tax increases, with its entire $1.8 trillion in additional deficit reduction coming from budget cuts. Speaker Boehner gave documents to House Republican caucus members stating that the $1.8 trillion would come from “entitlement reforms and savings” and that the plan “includes no tax hikes.” In addition, Speaker Boehner told radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh that Republicans appointed to the special committee that will craft the $1.8 trillion in savings won’t support tax increases and, in the unlikely event that that committee proposed a plan with tax increases, House Republicans would vote it down anyway.[1] A House GOP aide told National Review more bluntly: “We appoint members to the committee, and we’re not appointing any Republicans who will vote for tax hikes.”[2]
■The first round of cuts under the Boehner plan would hit discretionary programs hard through austere discretionary caps that Congress will struggle to meet; discretionary cuts thus will largely or entirely be off the table when it comes to achieving the further $1.8 trillion in budget reductions. As Speaker Boehner’s documents make clear, virtually all of the $1.8 trillion would need to come from cuts in entitlement programs. (Cuts in entitlement spending totaling more than $1.5 trillion would produce sufficient interest savings to achieve $1.8 trillion in total savings.)
■To secure $1.5 trillion in entitlement savings over the next ten years would require draconian policy changes. Policymakers would essentially have three choices: 1) cut Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current retirees, something that all budget plans from both parties (including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan) have ruled out; 2) repeal the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions while retaining its measures that cut Medicare payments and raise tax revenues, even though Republicans seek to repeal many of those measures as well; or 3) eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. There is no other plausible way to get $1.5 trillion in entitlement cuts in the next ten years.
■The evidence for this conclusion is abundant:
■The “Gang of Six” plan, with its very tough and controversial entitlement cuts, contains total entitlement reductions of $640 to $760 billion over the next ten years not counting Social Security, and $755 billion to $875 billion including Social Security. (That’s before netting out $300 billion in entitlement costs that the plan includes for a permanent fix to the scheduled cuts in Medicare physician payments that Congress regularly cancels; with these costs netted out, the Gang of Six entitlement savings come to $455 to $575 billion.)
■The budget deal between President Obama and Speaker Boehner that fell apart last Friday, which included cuts in Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and Medicare benefits as well as an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, contained total entitlement cuts of $650 billion (under the last Obama offer) to $700 billion (under the last Boehner offer).
■The Ryan budget that the House passed in April contained no savings in Social Security over the next ten years and $279 billion in Medicare cuts.


ARE fucking kidding us with this 7???? CBPP??? You claim Fox is a shill for the Republicans the last two sources I have seen you post have both been completely in the bag for the Dems. Not that I think Cryin-Jon's proposal is a very good one, but to use CBPP to refute it is laughable.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby S2M » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:59 am

Why are you guys arguing over shit that doesn't even matter? It's a copy and paste war of unoriginal thought. There are too many illegals and too many on the dole....there will be no change. No matter the steward, the results are the same...there WILL be another civil war. Mark my words. Washington is dicking around proposing solutions that still leave the power in their hands...WE let them have the power for far too long...as long as some people got to have their mansions, their antique car collections, and were able to go on their 8 vacations a year...they didn't really care what was going on with the country AS A WHOLE...I'm all for capitalism, but I'm also an advocate of ultilitarianism...when enough people are pissed off, and have shrugged off that apathy.....shit will change. Until then, enjoy the Washington that YOU created.....
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:42 am

Dude, more proof about the veracity of climate change has been thrown in your face than I can even count anymore. You're ridiculous.

And Stu...dude...if you actually think slashing the budget Boner-style isn't going to result in the loss of millions of jobs you're insane.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby conversationpc » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:27 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Dude, more proof about the veracity of climate change has been thrown in your face than I can even count anymore. You're ridiculous.


NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:52 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Dude, more proof about the veracity of climate change has been thrown in your face than I can even count anymore. You're ridiculous.

And Stu...dude...if you actually think slashing the budget Boner-style isn't going to result in the loss of millions of jobs you're insane.


If you would have actually READ what I posted you would see I don't like Cry-Baby's plan...all you saw was, "Stu said I was wrong". I was just saying their are better ways to rip into either plan (Dem or Rep) than by posting articles from obviously tainted and biased sources.

As for cutting the the budget, what exactly do you suggest we do??? Go further into debt to get us out of this??? That is fucking insane...I know what your response is going to be...Taxes...and minor cuts...the minute you raise taxes on the rich and big companies they will find way to hide it...happens EVERY time...and revenues fall.

Oh and that chart of the Bush years...you didn't do the math...taxes lowered...revenues up...but SPENDING was out of control...hence deficits! That is the correct reading of your data.

Neither party gives a flying fuck about us...they just want to get elected again...S2M has it right on the nose in his post.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:12 pm

Good post, Stu.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that revenues were not as high as they would have been WITHOUT the tax cuts...that's pretty cut and dry.

Look, I think Obama is a fool and a lousy President. There's no one on the horizon on either side who'll do any better, either.

What's fucking pathetic is that this country is literally on the verge of a Great Depression that would make the one in the 20's look like a four-point NASDAQ drop, and those assholes in Congress and the House are STILL playing poltiics. Fuck them.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:16 pm

conversationpc wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:Dude, more proof about the veracity of climate change has been thrown in your face than I can even count anymore. You're ridiculous.
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.



Try again! Spencer has been THOROUGHLY debunked on more than one occasion - in fact, I've already posted links to his wackiness before.

Move along!

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-debunked-not-fast-234403696.html
Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by the satellites. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Several researchers expressed frustration that the study was attracting media attention.

"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record."

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a "gray science."

Politics and science

The science of Spencer's work proved inextricable from the political debate surrounding global warming. The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it "extremely important."


"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby Rick » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:49 pm

Seven Wishes wrote:Good post, Stu.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that revenues were not as high as they would have been WITHOUT the tax cuts...that's pretty cut and dry.

Look, I think Obama is a fool and a lousy President. There's no one on the horizon on either side who'll do any better, either.

What's fucking pathetic is that this country is literally on the verge of a Great Depression that would make the one in the 20's look like a four-point NASDAQ drop, and those assholes in Congress and the House are STILL playing politics. Fuck them.


What do you think of this dude? I'm not sure whether he's anti-Muslim, or is just pro-choice as to whether people want Mosque's in their cities.

Image

Cain, who stirred controversy this year by saying he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet if elected, first expressed concern Thursday about the controversial mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. That mosque has been the subject of demonstrations and legal challenges in the wake of the controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... z1TSVL5ZVK
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby slucero » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:07 pm

Rick wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:Good post, Stu.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that revenues were not as high as they would have been WITHOUT the tax cuts...that's pretty cut and dry.

Look, I think Obama is a fool and a lousy President. There's no one on the horizon on either side who'll do any better, either.

What's fucking pathetic is that this country is literally on the verge of a Great Depression that would make the one in the 20's look like a four-point NASDAQ drop, and those assholes in Congress and the House are STILL playing politics. Fuck them.


What do you think of this dude? I'm not sure whether he's anti-Muslim, or is just pro-choice as to whether people want Mosque's in their cities.

Image

Cain, who stirred controversy this year by saying he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet if elected, first expressed concern Thursday about the controversial mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. That mosque has been the subject of demonstrations and legal challenges in the wake of the controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... z1TSVL5ZVK



I'd vote for Richard Pryor before voting for herman cain...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby Rick » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:17 pm

slucero wrote:
Rick wrote:
Seven Wishes wrote:Good post, Stu.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that revenues were not as high as they would have been WITHOUT the tax cuts...that's pretty cut and dry.

Look, I think Obama is a fool and a lousy President. There's no one on the horizon on either side who'll do any better, either.

What's fucking pathetic is that this country is literally on the verge of a Great Depression that would make the one in the 20's look like a four-point NASDAQ drop, and those assholes in Congress and the House are STILL playing politics. Fuck them.


What do you think of this dude? I'm not sure whether he's anti-Muslim, or is just pro-choice as to whether people want Mosque's in their cities.

Image

Cain, who stirred controversy this year by saying he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet if elected, first expressed concern Thursday about the controversial mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. That mosque has been the subject of demonstrations and legal challenges in the wake of the controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... z1TSVL5ZVK



I'd vote for Richard Pryor before voting for herman cain...


:lol: :lol: :lol:
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:17 pm

As is the case with most politicians on both sides of the aisle, a dead Pryor would be better than anything they could offer.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby Gin and Tonic Sky » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:41 pm

I think Uncle Ron has a point here, if everyone just had what they had last year (2010) we wouldn't be on the brink of a crisis.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... oming.html
Matt
User avatar
Gin and Tonic Sky
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:46 am
Location: in a purple and gold haze

Postby S2M » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:26 pm

Roll this around on your tongue for awhile....I've heard that politicians only have to serve ONE term, and they have healthcare for life.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby lights1961 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:21 am

S2M wrote:Roll this around on your tongue for awhile....I've heard that politicians only have to serve ONE term, and they have healthcare for life.


and benefits... the guys who resign under termoil.. dont they get the same thing???
Rick
lights1961
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5362
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:33 am

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:56 am

If they do...what a crock.

I'm beginning to think these guys may be on to something...perhaps this will emerge as a legitimate third party, as the libertarians and independents just don't have enough support, nor will they ever.

http://www.americanselect.org/about
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby Saint John » Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:21 am

Here's my plan to solve this crisis. I would cut entitlements by 50% over the next year. Moreover, unemployment would be 6 months max ... no excuses, no exceptions. I would, however, do this ... unemployment and welfare recipients would be allowed to collect an additional 6 months of either, if after 6 months they are holding a minimum wage job of at least 30 hours per week. That way, they have the benefit of collecting unemployment and a job, and could save enough money for the transition to just their new job when the additional 6 months expires. It's a rough sketch, but I think you get the idea. People need incentive to get out and work and I'm tired of people I know collecting unemployment because they don't want to work for $8-$10 an hour because they can sit at home and collect the same amount. Too fucking bad. It's a job, asshole. Show a little pride. My friends in the trades won't accept anything for under $25 ... so I think they need to be forced to. :)
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby S2M » Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:44 am

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes I've heard in all this drama about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby conversationpc » Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:50 am

S2M wrote:Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes I've heard in all this drama about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."


I'm not sure you could do that without a balanced budget amendment. Then you could hold them accountable for going against the Constitutuion.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby donnaplease » Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:11 am

Saint John wrote:Here's my plan to solve this crisis. I would cut entitlements by 50% over the next year. Moreover, unemployment would be 6 months max ... no excuses, no exceptions. I would, however, do this ... unemployment and welfare recipients would be allowed to collect an additional 6 months of either, if after 6 months they are holding a minimum wage job of at least 30 hours per week. That way, they have the benefit of collecting unemployment and a job, and could save enough money for the transition to just their new job when the additional 6 months expires. It's a rough sketch, but I think you get the idea. People need incentive to get out and work and I'm tired of people I know collecting unemployment because they don't want to work for $8-$10 an hour because they can sit at home and collect the same amount. Too fucking bad. It's a job, asshole. Show a little pride. My friends in the trades won't accept anything for under $25 ... so I think they need to be forced to. :)


Make the unemployment benefit gradually decrease over a period of six months or a year ~ which gives folks a chance in the first weeks/months to put food on the table while seeking employment. And make it more work to actually prove they are looking. I agree with you, it wasn't too awful long ago that people would go out and work 2 lower paying jobs in order to make ends meet. Now it seems it's ok to just sit back and wait for the jobs to come to you. Another option for our government would be to ramp up the job skills retraining programs. I live in an area where there has been a huge hit on manufacturing jobs, and tons of people have become 'dislocated workers'. Many have been able to take advantage of government-funded retraining to become nurses/aides, hairdressers, secretaries, etc. Short term job training combined with wage augmentation would help our society to reinvent itself.
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby RossValoryRocks » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:09 am

Seven Wishes wrote:Good post, Stu.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that revenues were not as high as they would have been WITHOUT the tax cuts...that's pretty cut and dry.


You can't prove that...not one iota...I however have the proof YOU put up that the tax cuts stimulated the economy and revenues increased.

It's not about revenues...it's about spending...or overspending. The government has gotten WAY WAY WAY too big and only fools want it to get bigger.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:10 am

FartFinder, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Who gives a shit? This is about as significant as one wacko, non-peer reviewed climatologist, throwing factoids and non-evidence in the faces of his colleagues.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."
---Albert Einstein
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests