EPTBoehner became Speaker of the House after the 2010 elections. Scott Brown became the vote that enabled the fililbuster for Repubs. WTF is not true ?
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 144
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
Boehner became Speaker of the House after the 2010 elections. Scott Brown became the vote that enabled the fililbuster for Repubs. WTF is not true ? | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On June 20 2012 17:33 Kaitlin wrote: Boehner became Speaker of the House after the 2010 elections. Scott Brown became the vote that enabled the fililbuster for Repubs. WTF is not true ? This part: On June 20 2012 16:44 Kaitlin wrote: First two years of the current Administration was entirely controlled by a super-majority of Democrats. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 20 2012 14:57 1Eris1 wrote: I find this type of thinking both dangerous and illogical. Possibly dangerous, certainly not illogical. Can you offer a logical proof as to its illogicality? edit: There is a reason why the American society has been one of (if not the most) sucessful entities throughout the past two centuries We are not in disagreement on this point. But will it continue to be so? | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
We're still the best because everyone else falls down with us. | ||
|
ErrorNA
United States86 Posts
On June 20 2012 17:01 tdhz77 wrote: The reasons why I'm going to vote for Obama in 2012 election. 1) Created more jobs in 4 years than G.W. Bush did in 8. 2) Inherited a recession from the Republicans. 3) Republican fillabuster is out of control. We are in a recession and they refuse to pass any legislation to get people working again. 4) The debt is due in large part to the Republicans. They led the country to two wars on our nations credit card. They also passed tax cuts on the top 10% of earners. Adding more debt. 5) Mitt Romney is a far right wing conservative during the primaries. The republicans are controlled by a very far right wing sector. EG) Indiana Senator was ousted by a Tea Party member. In the 80's this senator was considered to be the most conservative in the Senate. By today's standards of the republicans he is too moderate. 6) Obama has done a terrific job of getting things done. Healthcare (most legal scholars believe the SCOTUS will not vote it down. Saved American car companies and jobs. Unemployment is 8.1% it would have easily gone up if he hadn't taken the measures he did. 7) Lastly, Republicans want to double student loans in July. Like most people I can't afford college without loans. Most of my friends who have graduated from college are in substantial debt. Unlike, our parents who had government loans, which led to the largest middle class in human history. Soaking up the bias media am i right? ^^ I would like to address a couple of things. 1. Obama has Tripled the national debt since he took office, instead of shrinking it. if it is not too much lets take a look back to when Ronald Reagan became president. He inherited a debt from JImmy Carter. lets see if you know your history. What did he accomplish after his first term? he lowered the debt. Created tax cuts for everyone, cut spending, etc.. paving the way for an economic boom. Well how did that happen from cutting taxes and spending? lets keep it easy(easy numbers) If i make 100 dollars from my small business and 20 of that is how much i am taxed. i have 80 to spend on everything i need. lets say i have 2 people working for me and i pay them each 5 dollars. i have to pay expenses and that is 10 dollars. so that means i have 60 dollars to spend on my family or anything else. Now someone else comes into office and cuts taxes to 10 dollars instead of 20. thats 10 extra dollars that i have to spend, this could speed up my plans of expanding my business, hiring more people for long term jobs. When the government creates jobs it is slightly different.(radically different) lets take a couple of examples, FDR "put america to work" he had projects for people to do such as building a library, or fixing roads. This project is at the taxpayers expense. we need to pay for the construction and labor of the library. FDR and Obama take the money we all pay most people dont pay alot. The top 5 percent of taxpayers account for over 50 percent of raised income tax. This means it is relocating money from the rich to the lower classes. This is not all, what happens when the library is complete or that part of the road is fixed? they lose their job. This is a temporary fix and a bad one at that. This whole idea of "wealth redistribution" when simplified is socialism. 2. You are also saying the republican filibuster is out of control. Well for the first 2 years of Barrack Obama's presidency he had a "super majority" or just 1 person shy from it. This time period should have been the time where he fulfilled is promises such as pulling our troops out of the war, cut taxes, etc... Misc: 3. The "number" of how many jobs he created has many accounts of being faked or exaggerated. 4. Democrat ideals are extremely promising, and sound amazing. Most of the time it is completely unreasonable. It is like saying i dont want anyone in the whole world to never go hungry, that sounds great but is it possible? I believe that every individual should take charge and help those in need but they should not be forced to do so. -redistribution of wealth, the idea itself, breeds a bad mindset because what is the point of working if you get a bunch of handouts? Democrats are breeding people with that mentality. I believe it is a step in the wrong direction of humanity. to summarize go to canada, you dont even need to change your language. This is a country built on the idea that if you work hard and strive for greatness you can achieve if, if you dont then you wont. So, please do our founding fathers and everyone who died to preserve this amazing country a favor and lets keep this country from becoming a bunch of lazy people who just want handouts. Lets take a second and think what if everyone was on welfare? who would be putting money into the system? no one. Now, why are there people who dont work but get everything paid for? and there are people who work hard and put their entire life savings on the line to try and better themselves and we are discouraging that with regulations, but we are encouraging people sucking money from the system. do us all a favor and do not perpetuate this terrible mindset of free handouts and entitlement. | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On June 20 2012 18:22 ErrorNA wrote: Soaking up the bias media am i right? ^^ I would like to address a couple of things. 1. Obama has Tripled the national debt since he took office, instead of shrinking it. if it is not too much lets take a look back to when Ronald Reagan became president. He inherited a debt from JImmy Carter. lets see if you know your history. What did he accomplish after his first term? he lowered the debt. Created tax cuts for everyone, cut spending, etc.. paving the way for an economic boom. Well how did that happen from cutting taxes and spending? lets keep it easy(easy numbers) If i make 100 dollars from my small business and 20 of that is how much i am taxed. i have 80 to spend on everything i need. lets say i have 2 people working for me and i pay them each 5 dollars. i have to pay expenses and that is 10 dollars. so that means i have 60 dollars to spend on my family or anything else. Now someone else comes into office and cuts taxes to 10 dollars instead of 20. thats 10 extra dollars that i have to spend, this could speed up my plans of expanding my business, hiring more people for long term jobs. When the government creates jobs it is slightly different.(radically different) lets take a couple of examples, FDR "put america to work" he had projects for people to do such as building a library, or fixing roads. This project is at the taxpayers expense. we need to pay for the construction and labor of the library. FDR and Obama take the money we all pay most people dont pay alot. The top 5 percent of taxpayers account for over 50 percent of raised income tax. This means it is relocating money from the rich to the lower classes. This is not all, what happens when the library is complete or that part of the road is fixed? they lose their job. This is a temporary fix and a bad one at that. This whole idea of "wealth redistribution" when simplified is socialism. 2. You are also saying the republican filibuster is out of control. Well for the first 2 years of Barrack Obama's presidency he had a "super majority" or just 1 person shy from it. This time period should have been the time where he fulfilled is promises such as pulling our troops out of the war, cut taxes, etc... Misc: 3. The "number" of how many jobs he created has many accounts of being faked or exaggerated. 4. Democrat ideals are extremely promising, and sound amazing. Most of the time it is completely unreasonable. It is like saying i dont want anyone in the whole world to never go hungry, that sounds great but is it possible? I believe that every individual should take charge and help those in need but they should not be forced to do so. -redistribution of wealth, the idea itself, breeds a bad mindset because what is the point of working if you get a bunch of handouts? Democrats are breeding people with that mentality. I believe it is a step in the wrong direction of humanity. to summarize go to canada, you dont even need to change your language. This is a country built on the idea that if you work hard and strive for greatness you can achieve if, if you dont then you wont. So, please do our founding fathers and everyone who died to preserve this amazing country a favor and lets keep this country from becoming a bunch of lazy people who just want handouts. Lets take a second and think what if everyone was on welfare? who would be putting money into the system? no one. Now, why are there people who dont work but get everything paid for? and there are people who work hard and put their entire life savings on the line to try and better themselves and we are discouraging that with regulations, but we are encouraging people sucking money from the system. do us all a favor and do not perpetuate this terrible mindset of free handouts and entitlement. You know there are mostly socialist countries where people go to work and are happy and the world doesn't freeze over, right? | ||
|
DocTheMedic
United States79 Posts
On June 20 2012 17:53 sam!zdat wrote: Possibly dangerous, certainly not illogical. Can you offer a logical proof as to its illogicality? edit: We are not in disagreement on this point. But will it continue to be so? Not to mention that American society amends and occasionally violates the constitution. American society as we know it today wouldn't even exist if Lincoln strictly followed the constitution and didn't enact what can arguably be called the "War of Northern Aggression." | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 20 2012 16:44 Kaitlin wrote: First two years of the current Administration was entirely controlled by a super-majority of Democrats. What got done besides Health Care, which is largely considered about to be overturned ? Republicans could do nothing to stop anything. What did the Democrats accomplish in two years ? Other than get themselves voted out of office at the next election. Didn't Financial Reform also go down, getting rid of some bullshit by the credit card companies? It was one of the more major promises Obama made and kept and nobody ever mentions it. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 20 2012 18:22 ErrorNA wrote: Soaking up the bias media am i right? ^^ I would like to address a couple of things. 1. Obama has Tripled the national debt since he took office, instead of shrinking it. if it is not too much lets take a look back to when Ronald Reagan became president. He inherited a debt from JImmy Carter. lets see if you know your history. What did he accomplish after his first term? he lowered the debt. Created tax cuts for everyone, cut spending, etc.. paving the way for an economic boom. Well how did that happen from cutting taxes and spending? lets keep it easy(easy numbers) If i make 100 dollars from my small business and 20 of that is how much i am taxed. i have 80 to spend on everything i need. lets say i have 2 people working for me and i pay them each 5 dollars. i have to pay expenses and that is 10 dollars. so that means i have 60 dollars to spend on my family or anything else. Now someone else comes into office and cuts taxes to 10 dollars instead of 20. thats 10 extra dollars that i have to spend, this could speed up my plans of expanding my business, hiring more people for long term jobs. When the government creates jobs it is slightly different.(radically different) lets take a couple of examples, FDR "put america to work" he had projects for people to do such as building a library, or fixing roads. This project is at the taxpayers expense. we need to pay for the construction and labor of the library. FDR and Obama take the money we all pay most people dont pay alot. The top 5 percent of taxpayers account for over 50 percent of raised income tax. This means it is relocating money from the rich to the lower classes. This is not all, what happens when the library is complete or that part of the road is fixed? they lose their job. This is a temporary fix and a bad one at that. This whole idea of "wealth redistribution" when simplified is socialism. 2. You are also saying the republican filibuster is out of control. Well for the first 2 years of Barrack Obama's presidency he had a "super majority" or just 1 person shy from it. This time period should have been the time where he fulfilled is promises such as pulling our troops out of the war, cut taxes, etc... Misc: 3. The "number" of how many jobs he created has many accounts of being faked or exaggerated. 4. Democrat ideals are extremely promising, and sound amazing. Most of the time it is completely unreasonable. It is like saying i dont want anyone in the whole world to never go hungry, that sounds great but is it possible? I believe that every individual should take charge and help those in need but they should not be forced to do so. -redistribution of wealth, the idea itself, breeds a bad mindset because what is the point of working if you get a bunch of handouts? Democrats are breeding people with that mentality. I believe it is a step in the wrong direction of humanity. to summarize go to canada, you dont even need to change your language. This is a country built on the idea that if you work hard and strive for greatness you can achieve if, if you dont then you wont. So, please do our founding fathers and everyone who died to preserve this amazing country a favor and lets keep this country from becoming a bunch of lazy people who just want handouts. Lets take a second and think what if everyone was on welfare? who would be putting money into the system? no one. Now, why are there people who dont work but get everything paid for? and there are people who work hard and put their entire life savings on the line to try and better themselves and we are discouraging that with regulations, but we are encouraging people sucking money from the system. do us all a favor and do not perpetuate this terrible mindset of free handouts and entitlement. What is this? Fox News propaganda? The debt is increasing because of depressed tax revenues due to the recession. The reason the debt got so big is mainly because of Bush tax cuts and 2 wars. Obama did nothing to explicitly increase the debt, apart from the stimulus, which as the graph showed only directly increased the deficit by a minor amount, but also creating 3 million jobs. ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif) ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph1/24editorial_graph1-popup.gif) The reason why rich people pay most of the taxes is because inequality has ballooned into crazy proportions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg ![[image loading]](https://skwalker1964.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/income-inequality-in-us.png?w=428) http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php When the road is built and the library is fixed, then an asset for the country is created, increasing future productivity. The idea of fiscal stimulus is meant to be temporary. Are you suggesting the government permanently hire these workers? In a recession, when there is idle labor, i.e. people doing nothing, getting them to work gives them income, which lets them spend money on both essential and luxury things, which increases aggregate demand, giving more customers to businesses so they hire more, etc. It's a virtuous cycle, fiscal stimulus is temporary because it's only designed to start the cycle and to keep it self-sustaining, after that, the stimulus isn't needed anymore. You've merely claimed that redistributing wealth is bad, but you haven't shown why this is the case, you've presented no evidence. In fact, high inequality and low social mobility is bad: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 Of course, there was also the obligatory and unproven remark that government agencies cook the books. All of this is consistent with being a right-wing ideologue -- being anti-intellectual and anti-science, having no evidence to back up your claims, and having no appreciation for facts and statistics. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 20 2012 17:33 Kaitlin wrote: Boehner became Speaker of the House after the 2010 elections. Scott Brown became the vote that enabled the fililbuster for Repubs. WTF is not true ? Scott Brown was sworn in in February 2010. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
I think one of Obama's major election strategies is now becoming clear. He is going to use executive authority and make some controversial decisions, just so that Romney's lack of political decisiveness comes to the forefront all the more. Romney has got to figure out a way to solidify his viewpoint in a more presidential fashion, lest these sorts of interviews haunt him all the way to the election polls. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On June 20 2012 17:53 sam!zdat wrote: Possibly dangerous, certainly not illogical. Can you offer a logical proof as to its illogicality? It's senseless/irrational/illogical/whatever you want to call it to completely toss out the very thing that strings a society of 300 million people together in the middle of a difficult time just because you think it's "outdated". The reprecussions would be tremendous and you're kidding yourself if you think we could just slap together a new document that would please everybody in time. But ignoring that, can you speak to as why you think the Constituion is outdated? On June 20 2012 11:19 sam!zdat wrote: We are not in disagreement on this point. But will it continue to be so? It's done so through far worse on several occasions. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On June 20 2012 23:40 1Eris1 wrote: It's senseless/irrational/illogical/whatever you want to call it to completely toss out the very thing that strings a society of 300 million people together in the middle of a difficult time just because you think it's "outdated". Didn't say I wanted to ditch it RIGHT NOW But that's not very "logical"... edit: it's outdated because it emphasizes the wrong things and doesn't address very important issues. Also because most "constitutional" power is derived from a small number of relatively ambiguous clauses - constitutionality is more a matter of judicial exegesis than actual constitutional authority. We need a constitutional document which is more clear on its own right and which addresses the major issues of the 21st century, not the major issues of the 18th. | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On June 20 2012 22:55 farvacola wrote: I think one of Obama's major election strategies is now becoming clear. He is going to use executive authority and make some controversial decisions, just so that Romney's lack of political decisiveness comes to the forefront all the more. Romney has got to figure out a way to solidify his viewpoint in a more presidential fashion, lest these sorts of interviews haunt him all the way to the election polls. Romney can't afford to be decisive because the Republican base is impossible to please. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
The American population grows currently about 200,000 people per month. Look at 2000/2010 census numbers. 59% of those people need jobs. That is our employment to population ratio. So just right there.. the break-even monthly jobs number needs to be 118,000. (200,000 * 59%) Anything below 118,000 is a loss. So 48 months of just treading water and breaking even should have "created" 5,664,000 jobs. Obama, or anyone taking credit for "jobs created" is a joke. What is really killing us.. is that our peak Employment to Population number was 65%. Right now it's at like 59%. All the 10 year budget forecasts have pretty much counted on us getting back to that 65%.... and counting on that additional revenue. I personnally think all that additional job growth was debt-fueled and we we never ever get back there. But that is kind of a side issue. So we are missing 6% of the US population having jobs right now. Which is 18,900,000 jobs. (6% of 315 million) If I could magically create 18,900,000 jobs with the wave of my hand... that would bring us to where we USED to be labor percentage wise. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
What's the difference between job creation and makework? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Originally, the common view was that the cover up of F&F by the Justice Department (including obvious perjury) was worse than whatever the Justice Department actually did in managing and conceiving the operation. However, with the amount of resistance to producing the documents, it begs the question of whether there's more to F&F than meets the eye. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 21 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: In other news, is anyone paying attention to the latest developments in this Fast & Furious mess? F&F was the Mexican gun running sting/tracking operation that went awry, resulting in thousands of assault weapons going missing and US agents and other civilians getting shot with those weapons. Anyway, Rep. Issa subpoenaed the Justice Department to produce documents related to the operation, and Holder has been resisting the subpoena for months. Issa is going to hold a contempt vote, and just last night, Obama asserted executive privilege over the documents. Originally, the common view was that the cover up of F&F by the Justice Department (including obvious perjury) was worse than whatever the Justice Department actually did in managing and conceiving the operation. However, with the amount of resistance to producing the documents, it begs the question of whether there's more to F&F than meets the eye. At this point the entire thing can be spun one of two ways. If one is Republican-inclined, this is clearly a White House coverup and an indication that Eric Holder may have had knowledge of what was going on. This is mere conjecture at this point. On the other hand, without any inclination towards bias, this could very well be an attempt at cleaning house and figuring out exactly what went on before dragging the scandal into a more public light. Politically and from the standpoint of organizational cohesion, it makes perfect sense for Obama to claim executive privilege and do some more internal work. At this point, its hard to make a definite case either way. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 21 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: In other news, is anyone paying attention to the latest developments in this Fast & Furious mess? F&F was the Mexican gun running sting/tracking operation that went awry, resulting in thousands of assault weapons going missing and US agents and other civilians getting shot with those weapons. Anyway, Rep. Issa subpoenaed the Justice Department to produce documents related to the operation, and Holder has been resisting the subpoena for months. Issa is going to hold a contempt vote, and just last night, Obama asserted executive privilege over the documents. Originally, the common view was that the cover up of F&F by the Justice Department (including obvious perjury) was worse than whatever the Justice Department actually did in managing and conceiving the operation. However, with the amount of resistance to producing the documents, it begs the question of whether there's more to F&F than meets the eye. The interesting thing is, Obama is claiming executive privilege over documents that he claims he's never seen, read, nor have any connection with the whitehouse what-so-ever. That literally makes no sense. Though what it can do is delay the Republican investigation by creating yet another legal battle as Republicans would have to take the issue to Federal court. IMO, there's something in those documents that proves Obama had knowledge of Fast and Furious many months sooner than he claims. It's the only thing that explains the actions. Otherwise, common sense says if you're Obama you simply force Holder to resign and the whole mess goes away. To drag it out this long, this publically, this close to an election; there's got to be something very politically problamatic in there. IMO the only thing that could be would be proof that Obama or Biden knew about F&F all along. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 21 2012 00:33 TheToast wrote: The interesting thing is, Obama is claiming executive privilege over documents that he claims he's never seen, read, nor have any connection with the whitehouse what-so-ever. That literally makes no sense. Though what it can do is delay the Republican investigation by creating yet another legal battle as Republicans would have to take the issue to Federal court. IMO, there's something in those documents that proves Obama had knowledge of Fast and Furious many months sooner than he claims. It's the only thing that explains the actions. Otherwise, common sense says if you're Obama you simply force Holder to resign and the whole mess goes away. To drag it out this long, this publically, this close to an election; there's got to be something very politically problamatic in there. IMO the only thing that could be would be proof that Obama or Biden knew about F&F all along. This makes perfect sense, as it would be politically short-sighted of the President to simply release a host of executive office memos without having the time to go through them. In other words, there is still relatively little reason to interpret this as more than an attempt at in-house consistency, although many will still try their best to make it look bad. | ||
| ||
