ENOUGH ALREADY! Obama: ‘We Don’t Need a Balanced Budget Amendment’

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by jibeho


For all to enjoy who may not be familiar with Cloward-Piven

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

Sounds familiar.

lol

that is GOP strategy...

tank the government and privatize everything as a response, like the pre French Revolution (which back fired)

Prove it. Prove that Obama is not using this. Prove that it is a GOP strategy.

reply to post by Solasis


"This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head. Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind limber." - The Dude

Well, Obama is totally right here.

Why would you need a balanced budget amendment when you can keep convincing the masses that we just need to raise taxes on the "rich"?

Until you run out people to tax, this shtick will work great. It will certainly work for another 1-5 years, and that's all this bozo cares about.

reply to post by jibeho


Perfect reply Star!

reply to post by beezzer


It is pretty obvious

Mismanage something from the inside

Point to the thing as the problem

Propose to address the problem by dismantling the thing...

See you can starve the beast and you can engineer mistrust for the beast, followed up by a way to
"fix" the beast.

This concept is not hard Beezer

You tell us how someone who loves government benefits by destroying the finance prowess, power and reputation of something they "love"???

I think it is a fairly logic concept, you guys are winning

soon maybe you can privatize the air and contractualize private dependence and servitude with contracts by removing those vile regulations.

The demagoguery is very effective, another piece of evidence?

PRIVATIZE

reply to post by Janky Red


Sorry JR, but it'll go something like this.
Obama raises taxes
Economy continues to collpse
Obama steps in and says, "Gee-whiz golly! We tried democracy and that silly representative republic, but it just doesn't work! Lets try this. . . . . "

*shudder*

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Sorry JR, but it'll go something like this.
Obama raises taxes
Economy continues to collpse
Obama steps in and says, "Gee-whiz golly! We tried democracy and that silly representative republic, but it just doesn't work! Lets try this. . . . . "

*shudder*

Right...

So why did they do that when they had the POTUS, HOUSE and SENATE? really, silly person

Who is obsesessed with getting rid of government?

*Just explain why someone who loves government would benefit by tarnishing the idea of government?

You can't, hence you are projecting conservative motive to obscure the truth about the far rights agenda.

They speak about the desire openly yet you cannot make the connection for some reason...

Explain * above please

reply to post by beezzer


Be prepared for a new Federally backed jobs initiative on the horizon. Obama's own WPA for lack of a better description. Of course he'll need more money for the project that is drastically needed to rebuild our nation's infrastructure that was ignored with the last stimulus plan. Its coming and it will be used to get the unemployed to permanently suck off the govt. tit.

Obama will finally be pressed to create jobs one way or another. He'll create jobs by Executive Order. His way. Just one little requirement before you sign on for work. Gotta join the union.

It's coming!! before the 2012 elections. Perhaps he should give a nod to small businesses first.

reply to post by Janky Red

The *shudder* was my imagination over the idea of a form of government by fiat. An Obama dictatorship.

reply to post by jibeho

I hope you're wrong.

I think you're right.

And whats wrong with that?
Infrastructure needs to be enhanced does it not?
Doing so would create jobs, would it not?
Kicking this can down the road would only increase the cost, would it not? (It's cheaper to fix a bridge than to build a new one)
Interest rates are low, are they not?

On the other hand, a little known thing about income taxes (at least here it seems) is this: You pay them on profits. Reinvest, and you don't have to pay them.

Originally posted by debunky
And whats wrong with that?
Infrastructure needs to be enhanced does it not?
Doing so would create jobs, would it not?
Kicking this can down the road would only increase the cost, would it not? (It's cheaper to fix a bridge than to build a new one)
Interest rates are low, are they not?

On the other hand, a little known thing about income taxes (at least here it seems) is this: You pay them on profits. Reinvest, and you don't have to pay them.

This isn't reinvestment. At least, when you invest, you expect a return.
With government? When you "invest" with government, you just get bigger government.

And more government people telling you to "invest" more of your money to them.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by debunky
And whats wrong with that?
Infrastructure needs to be enhanced does it not?
Doing so would create jobs, would it not?
Kicking this can down the road would only increase the cost, would it not? (It's cheaper to fix a bridge than to build a new one)
Interest rates are low, are they not?

On the other hand, a little known thing about income taxes (at least here it seems) is this: You pay them on profits. Reinvest, and you don't have to pay them.

This isn't reinvestment. At least, when you invest, you expect a return.
With government? When you "invest" with government, you just get bigger government.

And more government people telling you to "invest" more of your money to them.

Well what is going to motivate the private sector to invest in things everybody uses???

We very well might age our selves out of global relevance if we do not let our infrastructure modernize
With global competition.

Is it just, give up???

Originally posted by debunky

On the other hand, a little known thing about income taxes (at least here it seems) is this: You pay them on profits. Reinvest, and you don't have to pay them.

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH. Wrong

You have to pay the taxes on it either before investing, or after when you pull the money out to use.
The Govt will not go hungry when it comes to your money.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by debunky
And whats wrong with that?
Infrastructure needs to be enhanced does it not?
Doing so would create jobs, would it not?
Kicking this can down the road would only increase the cost, would it not? (It's cheaper to fix a bridge than to build a new one)
Interest rates are low, are they not?

On the other hand, a little known thing about income taxes (at least here it seems) is this: You pay them on profits. Reinvest, and you don't have to pay them.

This isn't reinvestment. At least, when you invest, you expect a return.
With government? When you "invest" with government, you just get bigger government.

And more government people telling you to "invest" more of your money to them.

Nice rebuttal!
It's kinda over there when it comes to hitting the target though.
Ok: I have a company.
It makes 1000$ profit.
A)
I take that profit out of it.
I pay income taxes for 1000$
B)
I use 800 of those 1000$ to buy stuff
I pay income taxes on 200$

Nobody said anything about "reinvesting in government"
Could you buy Treasury bonds with the 800$? Absolutely!

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by debunky

On the other hand, a little known thing about income taxes (at least here it seems) is this: You pay them on profits. Reinvest, and you don't have to pay them.

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH. Wrong

You have to pay the taxes on it either before investing, or after when you pull the money out to use.
The Govt will not go hungry when it comes to your money.

Sorry, thats the way it works. You can even depreciate your investment before calculating your profits. (Thanks to bush, one of the tax cuts he implemented nobody opposes)

reply to post by debunky

Simple question.

What would be my return on investing with the government?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by debunky

 

Simple question.

What would be my return on investing with the government?

www.treasury.gov...
I suggest you talk to your investment banker.

reply to post by debunky

I buy gold instead. Or I should say, I used to buy gold. (It went to 1,600.00 oz today) Now I just giggle when it goes up.



ETA: And I did it by listening to Glenn Beck, bwahahahahahahahahahaha

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by debunky

 

I buy gold instead. Or I should say, I used to buy gold. (It went to 1,600.00 oz today) Now I just giggle when it goes up.

Hope you didn't buy coins
I'd keep a close eye on that ... bust will come.

Still can't really make heads or tails on that question of yours though.
You also ignored the first (Pro keynsian) part of my post.