Signs accumulate that liberals are embarrassed by Obama - The tides have turned

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
You think America is the only nation where the cost of living has doubled. Just wait until you gas Prices hit $10.91 a gallon like it is in Europe. The whole world is in a mess, you have to make your decisions based on the whole envoiroment not just on what is happening in America.


I can't help it if Europe is failing worst than America... As Obama adopts European socialism standards we will see your gas prices here too and you taxes.... sorry to say. Not something I want to see here since you guys are showing it doesn't work that well already in practice.

Our big mistake was the housing market and yours is the Euro....I think we will recover quicker though.




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by xuenchen
 


If the warning signs were there, why did Bush not put a lid on it whilst he was in office. If anything he de-regulated the market even further.


he tried.

too much resistance.

i will find the old stories.....

and, what "further deregulations" happened and when ?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


We are not in the Euro and I would share your concern if we were. Liberalism has not failed in the non corrupt countries of the north of Europe. Using a corrupt, Greece, Italy and Spain as your yardstick for how well left sided politics work is just plain ridiculous. Why don't you quote Norway, Sweeden or Germany?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 



twist it how you will but the maths shows your argument for supply side "trickle down" economics has brought about nothing but high inequality, and massive debt for the majority of americans


What’s the difference between your description of “trickle-down economics” and the modern day socialism that Obama and the left want? The only difference I see is in who controls the wallet. The bureaucrats on the right want to keep control in the hands of wealthy citizens while the uber-Left want to place control in the hands of the government. Either way, people on the bottom half will lose.

By supporting Obama you’re supporting the very thing you decry!



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Well Bush allowed 40 to 1 leverage for a start, which was about the most significant factor involved in the Banking Collapse.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 



Well Bush allowed 40 to 1 leverage for a start, which was about the most significant factor involved in the Banking Collapse.


Sounds like an attempt at a market-based solution rather than jumping right into tax payer funded bailouts.

You don’t support market-based solutions?



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





how does the rich storing money in the cayman islands benifit anyone except themselves and HOW does that create jobs?


Go ask that bank teller working in the Cayman Islands why they have a job.




in times of war the top 1% of america has payed from 70% to 90% income tax to support the country through the war, is this "steeling from the rich"?


Actually in times of war the US(see Roosvelvt,Johnson) borrowed money from Others, then sold gold in fort knox to cover the balance,

Currently the us is borrowing from China, that same place those American business's are that pump US dollars in to the chinese economny.

supply side economics.




or is making the bottom 90% of poor people pay for the wars steeling from the poor? twist it how you will but the maths shows your argument for supply side "trickle down" economics has brought about nothing but high inequality, and massive debt for the majority of americans


Come again?

Considering the poor have zero income tax liability what are they paying for exactly?




i can do the maths, i am really good at maths, and the data sets are undeniable, tax cuts for the rich provide short term stimulus, then MASSIVE deficit,


Really? tax cuts for the rich is they keep their own money, that massive debt is incurred by what?

Massive spending on those who are not returning anything back true fact.




THE NUMBERS DONT LIE


Numbers don't lie

16 trillion dollar deficit
50 million on SS
50 million on medicare
50million on medicaid
47 million on welfare

Who are consuming more wealth than they are paying in.

That is the math and the math supports this nation is screwed.
edit on 7-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by XPLodER
 



twist it how you will but the maths shows your argument for supply side "trickle down" economics has brought about nothing but high inequality, and massive debt for the majority of americans


What’s the difference between your description of “trickle-down economics” and the modern day socialism that Obama and the left want? The only difference I see is in who controls the wallet. The bureaucrats on the right want to keep control in the hands of wealthy citizens while the uber-Left want to place control in the hands of the government. Either way, people on the bottom half will lose.

By supporting Obama you’re supporting the very thing you decry!




im not american so i find it disturbing that i have to explain this to you,
of the people by the people is not by the rich for the rich,
the name of govenence where corporations rule the government is called fashism,


The bureaucrats on the right want to keep control in the hands of wealthy citizens


if the control is already in the hands of teh wealthy, and has been for a while,
then the current economic situation is a direct result of their policies "trickle down"
and LOOK AT THE STATE OF TEH ECONOMY

i have no taste for big government,
but big money does not fear being thrown out of government by the people.

the rich right and their too big to fail is socialist handouts to the rich to the tune of 17 trillion and counting,
i could feed and educate the poor and allow them to "drag themselves up by the boot straps" for a mear fraction of that money.

and with a larger middle class MORE consumers = growing economy = economic growth

15 years of failed righty trickle down will cause a backlash, aswing in the opposite direction,
thing is to moderate some of the "swing" in the opposite direction
or you will end up going from one extream to the other

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by michael1983l
 



Well Bush allowed 40 to 1 leverage for a start, which was about the most significant factor involved in the Banking Collapse.


Sounds like an attempt at a market-based solution rather than jumping right into tax payer funded bailouts.

You don’t support market-based solutions?



You call allowing banks to hold 40 times more than their assets in leveraged debt a sollution? Jeeze no wonder it happened in America.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



I'd disagree on that. Hillary and Obama were still on the same side in the end.


I think this just proves that you weren't really paying attention to the 2008 Democratic Primary and the nasty politics that were involved.

Birtherism, Jeremiah Wright, Larry Sinclair, Obama being a Muslim, Obama being gay, Obama hating America...these are all things that were started by Hillary Clinton's campaign.

And if you go back and watch the Hillary and Obama debates, you will see a nasty debate. The first Romney/Obama debate was not a nasty debate, it was Obama deliberately not engaging Romney (go look at the campaign's releases before the debate about what Obama was planning on doing). There were no personal attacks, no big jabs at each other, it was a fairly low key and civil debate.

The only thing shocking that everyone talked about was why Obama stayed so low key and reserved. Not how good Romney was, but rather how passive Obama was. Now, Republicans are trying to say he was like that because Romney was so dominate, but that just isn't the case. Obama had a strategy, one his campaign revealed before the debate, and he followed it perfectly.


He basically broke all the little unwritten rules of etiquette


Yes, he acted like an elitist douchebag that everyone thinks he is.

I find it funny you think him acting like a rich guy who doesn't have to follow the rules is going to help Romney, that is the biggest thing people dislike about him.

Yes, the Obama-haters will jump for joy and praise Romney as the great Obama slayer, but he already had their votes. The debate did nothing for his favorability rating, because he acted just the way people despise about him. Like a rich elitist prick.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Go yell at Clinton for putting the last nail in the coffin of Glass Stegall, and Frank for sitting up there in Washington and lying," No no there is nothing to see here".

Then go yell at the people who allowed mbs, to be bought and sold, you know those same people who created MRES, and who created Fanny and Freddy.

Love how Bush gets blamed.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



I’m watching the campaign whose lead went from double digits to within the margin of error on polls


Oh yeah, which polls are that?

I'd love to see a poll that Obama was leading in double digits that now show him within the margin of error.

Good luck finding one, because they don't exist.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Go ask that bank teller working in the Cayman Islands why they have a job.

if you love tax havens so much GO LIVE THERE


Actually in times of war the US(see Roosvelvt,Johnson) borrowed money from Others, then sold gold in fort knox to cover the balance,


you cant twist history my friend, i know the top tax rates and yes money was borrowed,
BUT TOP TAX RATES WERE VERY HIGH


Currently the us is borrowing from China, that same place those American business's are that pump US dollars in to the chinese economny.

supply side economics.


whats that, supply china with us jobs and boost the american economy how?
when the money is tax free in the cayman islands



Come again?

Considering the poor have zero income tax liability what are they paying for exactly?


some of the poor pay higher taxes than romney (a millionaire)



Really? tax cuts for the rich is they keep their own money, that massive debt is incurred by what?

Massive spending on those who are not returning anything back true fact.


no the rich use roads to ship their goods, bridges ect,
they use internet and power,
the use currency
these are just a small fraction of things that the rich use to make money,
THAT ARE PAYED FOR BY TAXES



Numbers don't lie

16 trillion dollar deficit
50 million on SS
50 million on medicare
50million on medicaid
47 million on welfare

Who are consuming more wealth than they are paying in.

That is the math and the math supports this nation is screwed.


PMSL

EVERY country that gave massive tax cuts to the rich just before 08,
is now in massive deficit,
you intentionally look at static "now numbers"
instead of looking into the cause of those massive numbers
let me help you out,
it takes years of failed policy to do that much damage



create a 7% deficit in tax income VS EXPENDITURE and in ten years the deficiet will DOUBLE

guess how much revinue was lost due to the bush tax cuts?

xploder








edit on 7-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Bush was in office when the cards came tumbling down, when your in office you are supposed to protect your nation from that happening. Bush failed, he was too busy riding the artificially empowered economy which was essentially being driven by money that did not exist. Bush did not want to regulate the banks because if he wanted to he would have done it.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 




if you love tax havens so much GO LIVE THERE


Who was the one who brought them up?




you cant twist history my friend, i know the top tax rates and yes money was borrowed, BUT TOP TAX RATES WERE VERY HIGH


Did not twist anything those are the historical facts, like SS was created in 1935, then Medicare, and Medicaid were created in the 60's.

Where less people were using them,salaries were lower,cost of healthcare was lower, and even still could not afford to fund them even with that higher tax rates.




whats that, supply china with us jobs and boost the american economy how? when the money is tax free in the cayman islands


Getting rather tired of that crap asked an answered when I already said those American business's need to be pumping money here instead of there.




some of the poor pay higher taxes than romney (a millionaire)


That is a lie Romney paid 2 million in taxes, then those property taxes he pays on his homes

That was hilarious poor people do not have any income tax, in fact most do not even pay property
taxes.




no the rich use roads to ship their goods, bridges ect, they use internet and power,


Those property taxes they pay for instance someone who owns a $1 million dollar home is paying around 10,000 bucks a year just in property taxes.

They pay more than those who deride them TRUE FACT.





EVERY country that gave massive tax cuts to the rich just before 08, is now in massive deficit,


Every country is spending more and promising more than they can deliever no amount of taxation is ever going to cover them.
edit on 7-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


supply side economics had 10 years to work,
deregulation has had ten years to work

LOOK AT THE ECONOMY

tax havens ensure there is nothing left to trickle down,
and banks are now casinos

maby its time to look at different "models"

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




Every country is spending more and promising more than they can deliever no amount of taxation is ever going to cover them.


im going to post teh video again,

the same 7% deficit turned into a 7% surplus,
will HALVE THE DEBT IN TEN YEARS.

the interest ALONE on the retired debt would pay for most to have health care and an education



something CAN be done to fix this

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 



You call allowing banks to hold 40 times more than their assets in leveraged debt a sollution? Jeeze no wonder it happened in America.


I call that working within the free market to find a solution….yes. Allowing them to further leverage their assets allows them to ‘bail themselves out’ in a way. It obviously didn't fix the problem though.

Do you call tax payer funded bailouts a solution? Those didn't fix the problem either.

History will be the judge on whether it was a good or bad decision on Bush’s part but I’m glad he tried to give the markets a chance to correct themselves. I think businesses that go under should go through the bankruptcy process, so I certainly disagree with bailouts or the “too big to fail” mantra.

edit on 7-10-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


We are not in the Euro and I would share your concern if we were. Liberalism has not failed in the non corrupt countries of the north of Europe. Using a corrupt, Greece, Italy and Spain as your yardstick for how well left sided politics work is just plain ridiculous. Why don't you quote Norway, Sweeden or Germany?


When we look at Sweden we see a tax rate of about 50% and a sales tax of 25%, but it works for them...I guess. The problem is we have cities with a larger population than ALL of Sweden, so how can we compare anything at all.

The closest comparison would be ALL of EURO to America to get some kind like size.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Double

Post!
edit on 7-10-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join