As Expected, Obama to Spend More Time "Campaigning" Than Negotiating Budget

reply to post by neo96


And by the way...the "people" did not vote themselves "more money" they voted for opportunity...for jobs...for education...for a Gov. that didn't say Ef Off to every minority, women and anyone that wasn't rich.

And the "end of the republic" is not heralded by a people whom you somehow think voted themselves more money...it is heralded by a capitalist system so corrupt and bias toward the wealthy that they are able to Privatize the profits while socializing thier losses in the form of tax payer bail-outs, subsidies and tax breaks...that spiral toward plutocrasey needs to be halted if we are to survive.

See the whole argument of how letting the tax breaks expire for the wealthy wouldn't end our debt is a straw man. It isn't that anyone is looking to pay the debt off immediately with that revenue...it is that for 5 years the wealthiest have enjoyed loop-holes, tax breaks and outright bailouts all at the expense of the middle class. They have privatized thier gains...socialized thier losses...and the continued Bush era tax breaks are the last straw...enough already, the middle class has been bled dry and the wealthy sure-as sh*& are not the "Job Creators"...that is just a Frank Lutizm that he is very proud of BTW...If the tax breaks were making jobs or helping the economy then what the eff happened when we had the greatest economic crisis since the great depression??? The wealthy have had the tax breaks since 2002!! And he bailouts! And the loopholes AND THE SUBSIDIES.

Ask the second wealthiest man in the USA...

WARREN BUFFET

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

www.nytimes.com...

Privatize the gains...socialize the losses...all at the expense of the middle class...that kills a nation.

reply to post by Indigo5

And by the way...the "people" did not vote themselves "more money" they voted for opportunity...for jobs...for education...for a Gov. that didn't say Ef Off to every minority, women and anyone that wasn't rich.

Yes they did the current potus campagined on "making those pay their faire share" and someone even provided polls to show they agreed.

Awesome Buffet

Just pay no attention to owing back taxes

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Bunch of hypocritics trying to "socialize losses" by making the evil rich PAY!!!!

But then agian that is what all social engineering/programs are socialize losses that do nothing but line corporate pockets.

reply to post by Ghost375


And Harry Reid is the Great compromiser
Maybe Reid can start with a budget, then work on the smaller issues.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the guy who hasn't even introduced a budget in more than 2000 days, vowed not to work with Romney should he win next Tuesday.

Link

Originally posted by neo96

Just pay no attention to owing back taxes

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You forgot the part where Berkshire Hathaway was waiting for the IRS to tell them how much they owed.

See with taxes..often the government does it's own math...I am small potatoes, paid around 40k in taxes last year and have two accountants, fully prepared taxes by pros.. and despite that the Gov always runs the numbers and either sends me money back or tells me I owe more. With Berkshire...or with any company in the millions or billions there will always be a descrepencey...and books the size of Berkshire Hathaway it is no suprise the gov is taking years to figure out how much they think they are owed.

He might owe back taxes, but they are still waiting for the adjustment bill from the gov.

reply to post by Indigo5

You forgot the part where Berkshire Hathaway was waiting for the IRS to tell them how much they owed.

Hilarious Buffet is waiting on Government!!!!!

And that doesn't fly considering everyone else knows how much he owes.

www.newsmax.com...

That be 1 billion but hey feel free to continue to put up a tax dodger as the posterboy of paying their fair share

So was there a point there beyond the typical hypocrisy and do as I say not as I do?

What's more what about those in America who have zero tax liability?

Those who are talked about in these links eh?

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

money.cnn.com...

www.forbes.com...

Seem to remember the guy who lost make a statement about those people that was overrided by lies.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

No...it was some no - name author in the 60's that said it. Then it was spam emailed in 2000 during the elections and attributed to a french philosopher and most recently recycled and tagged on B Franklin. Just a heads-up...the truth always matters...if you can't look it up yourselves, let me know and I can do the fact finding for you...used to it by now.

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” ― Benjamin Franklin

That really was hilarious real easy to go find out who says what when all they have to do is a 2 second google search.

Someone sitting there telling me Franklin did not say that ?

Really?

Go tell the internets "they got it wrong".

For instance.
www.goodreads.com...

edit on 13-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Sure...

Google news, Google scholar and Google Books for "they can vote themselves money", I could find no attributions to Franklin earlier than 1988. By contrast, "time is money" is attributed to Franklin as early as 1850.

[3]--Nowa123 04:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Wikiquote has a similar quote attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler: 'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.' -- Traal 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

en.wikiquote.org...:Benjamin_Franklin

Alexander Fraser Tytler
Disputed
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

The earliest known attribution of this quote was December 9, 1951, in what appears to be an op-ed piece in The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T. Peterson[2]. The quote has not been found in Tytler's work. It has also been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville.

en.wikiquote.org...

...Just cuz you find a site attributing it to him doesn't make it so...people actually research this stuff...

The truth is that despite their frequent use, the above text actually has its origins in two separate and independent quotes, and the author of the first half is, to date, unknown. With regard to the first quoted paragraph, the Library of Congress' Respectfully Quoted writes, "Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified." The quote, however, appears in no published work of Tytler's. And with regard to the second, the same book says "Author unknown. Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. Unverified."

Yet despite this factual uncertainty, these quotes are not only frequently attributed to Tytler, but just as frequently employ his antiquity as a means of enhancing their reliability. I myself was misled for years before being informed of their "unverified" status.

Thus, I attempted to trace the origins of these quotes, as best I could. For the first quote, ending in "dictatorship," I have chosen to adopt the title "Why Democracies Fail," or WDF for short, which is perhaps the most common title given the quote. The last sentence of the first paragraph does not appear alongside the earliest instances of the quote. For the second quote, I have chosen to use the title "Fatal Sequence," or FS, which was the name given to it in a 1989 newspaper.

The earliest usage of "Why Democracies Fail" that has been located was printed on page 12A of the Daily Oklahoman on December 9, 1951.


Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Elmer T. Peterson

www.lorencollins.net...

reply to post by Indigo5

.Just cuz you find a site attributing it to him doesn't make it so...people actually research this stuff...

You do know that works both ways RIGHT?

Wiki

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You forgot the part where Berkshire Hathaway was waiting for the IRS to tell them how much they owed.

Hilarious Buffet is waiting on Government!!!!!

And that doesn't fly considering everyone else knows how much he owes.

www.newsmax.com...

That be 1 billion but hey feel free to continue to put up a tax dodger as the posterboy of paying their fair share

Nope...Honestly, this is what makes it hard to debate the reality disconnect folks. I'll help you out here, number one Newsmax? The way it works...ANYONE can write a story and you get paid by advertisers for click throughs...veracity not required. 2...the story says "One analyst estimates"...a story written for clicks, not facts and cites a fictional estimation.....Buffet can't pay a bill according to an anonomous Newsmax story citing an anonymous financial persons estimate!!!

Neo...I get that your team lost...but I am not intersted in BS debates anymore...when we can wrestle over a set of facts rather than continued BS as rebuttals I'll be more than happy to engage.

FACTS...Actual sources...research...unbiased truth....I'll be there, till then peace.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

.Just cuz you find a site attributing it to him doesn't make it so...people actually research this stuff...

You do know that works both ways RIGHT?

Wiki

reply to post by Indigo5

Nope...Honestly, this is what makes it hard to debate the reality disconnect folks. I'll help you out here, number one Newsmax?

The way it works is attacking the source does not "discredit" the article even tho some on here believe it does.

reply to post by Indigo5


Aww shucks oh well

Back to the campaign of stealing from the greedy giving and giving to the so called needy which is nothing but a purely fascist and tyrannical action to support.

Zeig heil.

I always kinda chuckle when its said the GOP isn't willing to compromise when Obama made it clear he gets what he wants or he vetos it. Thats not the way to open a compromising negotiation with anybody.

Having said that lets assume the rich get more taxes. Who here for one instant doesn't think it won't get passed down the ladder to those who can't afford it. Either via layoffs, or hour reduction, or increase in cost of product. Their bottom line will not be affected, they didn't get to be rich by calmly rolling over and accepting new taxes and levies.(btw, I already emailed my republican state rep and appealed that the tax cuts for 250k+ be dropped)

What about spending? Any compromise on that? Any spending cuts other then theoretic ones? Any actually on the paper? What programs can be safely cut or reduced? Sadly it will probably be education and transportation. Or research. How can they generate revenue? If they try taxing too much, companies will close or leave so profits can continue. If they tax the rich, they will find more loopholes, but even if they paid their taxes, we are talking millions in revenue vs trillions in spending. It won't make a dent. And creating new revenue takes time.

How will this affect the holiday spending, something retail stores count on to boost their yearly sales? Will CEO's be afraid to drop prices too much? Or will they go with a major slash to bring in what they can?

What about the people who shop? With record numbers of unemployed, who will have the money to spend?

reply to post by Nite_wing


If you have 10 computers, why do you need 11?

It's called greed because it's being self-centered and only caring about your one's personal interest.

Rich people don't get rich from money appearing out of thin air. Rich people make money off of other people. When people do not have money, the rich people don't get as rich.

If you want to become even more rich, you need to make sure that the people that make you rich have money to spend.

reply to post by Indigo5

What an absolutely idiotic premise. Good luck with that...Whining and throwing a tantrum that the President is actually making his case to THE PEOPLE....boo hoo for the GOP.

Unfortunately, Obama isn't straight with the people and they don't know enough to ask the right/tough questions that need to be answered to begin with. Just the way he likes it.

2 party system

yay

Actually I've found it enormously refreshing to have a President who is willing to come to the people with problems. This has become his M.O. Good for him. It would be a great thing if all politicians followed the same logic. Issues that effect us could come from behind closed doors.

reply to post by Indigo5

The OMB issued a historical study that said that letting the tax cuts expire would not effect job growth or economic growth AT ALL.

The CBO says letting the tax cuts expire on the rich is only going to bring in a whopping $60 - 80 Billion per year. Unfortunately, if we bring in the same revenue as last year that would still put the deficit at $1+ Trillion for next year. As for economic growth, the CBO says it will have a negative impact of 1/4% (not a lot, but still a larger negative impact).

Originally posted by Indigo5

BTW - Tomorrow he meets with the CEOs of America's biggest companies...Friday he meets with the GOP...then Thanksgiving...then he will take his message to the People and turn the screws on the Idiots leading the House who think a double-dip recession is a good idea.

You seemed confused there for a moment...like he was leaving town tomorrow and was meeting only with Labor.

How did you get 4 stars for this comment when it's all clearly outlined in my original O.P.

reply to post by Indigo5

And by the way...the "people" did not vote themselves "more money" they voted for opportunity...for jobs...for education...for a Gov. that didn't say Ef Off to every minority, women and anyone that wasn't rich.

I've got news for you. People voted for jobs in 2008 and all they got was Obama spending eighteen months on Obamacare. Notice too that the only thing Obama has specifically stated about jobs is trying to create 1 million manufacturing jobs (to make the Unions feel like they're getting their money's worth). He'll try to kill two birds with one stone by throwing more money at solar panels and wind turbine manufacturers who are failing.

I'm betting Obama spends more time on immigration reform that he does jobs for this term. He only cares about his legacy at this point.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

If you want to become even more rich, you need to make sure that the people that make you rich have money to spend.

If you want to become rich, you learn how to manage money, something most people wouldn't know how to manage if they did have it. We already know we have a majority of people spending money that they don't have anyway.