Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
- Who is legislating the wealthy out of prosperity? Are you saying that Reagan was wrong?
- Its not a zero-sum game.
- The government redistributes wealth. No nation ever survived without that happening.
- Who wants to multiply wealth? Why not just increase wealth on a modest but regular basis?
- So you are in favor of child labor and killing the disabled/oldsters who can't work?
"There is no gain in arguing with a poo flinging monkey. While his
gibbering and raucous cries of victory may seem obnoxious in your ears
as you walk away, he will soon be quietly sitting behind his bars again
and licking his own feces off his fingers as you carry on with your day."





"There is no gain in arguing with a poo flinging monkey. While his
gibbering and raucous cries of victory may seem obnoxious in your ears
as you walk away, he will soon be quietly sitting behind his bars again
and licking his own feces off his fingers as you carry on with your day."







I simply can't accept any so-called conservative whining now about the amount of the debt. Where were all you people when Bush took it from $5 trillion to almost $11 trillion?
Under Bush, the people in my family who are in the middle class saw their taxes go up, not down, just like under Reagan.
There was a massive distribution of wealth from the bottom to the top under Bush, same as Reagan, and just because conservatives deny this fact doesn't mean it never happened.
When the Bush tax cuts expire in January, people making just under $60,000 like me will actually see our taxes go down by another $400/year.
In the GOP's America, they'd like to see it look a lot more like Mexico than any other country on the planet, which is troubling. It's like conservatives just want a society of millionaires and the migrant workers who wipe their asses. Fuck the middle-class.
I also can't accept this "redistribution of wealth" bullshit from a conservative, since nearly a trillion went upwards instead of "trickling down" like it was supposed to, which is another failed GOP economic theory.
Conservatives are so smug and self-absorbed by their thinking that people are "awaking" to Obama, when it's really all about Obama losing his own crowd by not having a public option in the health care bill, and by not ending Gitmo or Afghanistan in a timeline more friendly to liberals.
He's still poised to win a huge second-term victory. How do I know? Who is looking forward to having to run against the guy who finally gets to say, "I got health care for all"?
Obama is not less popular now because America is secretly conservative; it's because America is actually secretly centre-left, but moderate lefties are disenfranchised with the President's constant centre-right actions, from individual mandates to a completely NRA-friendly gun stance.
Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama, Conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their fucking heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents. - Jon Stewart
We don't actually know how many people the IRS will need to add to handle their responsibilities under the bill.
Like so many things in this healthcare "reform", the IRS increases are covered in "probably" and "might".
Here is what the CBO said about it in their March 11 letter to Congress:
We don't know what the IRS would do with this $5 to 10 billion in increased funding (we don't even know how much they'll get, since it will be appropriated in separate legislation).CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3590. (Those costs would depend on future appropriations and are not included in the tables accompanying this letter.) As indicated in CBOs earlier estimate, such costs would probably include an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years for administrative costs of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and at least a similar amount for expenses of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). CBO has also identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of future discretionary spending for a number of grant programs and other provisions of the legislation; whether some or all of those costs would be incurred would depend on future appropriation legislation.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc...ter_HR3590.pdf
It could be 15,000 new agents. It could be 10,000 desk pilots. It could be a fully staffed travelling three ring circus.
We don't know, just like we don't know the actual costs of this "reform" plan.
Matt
Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama, Conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their fucking heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents. - Jon Stewart
Here you go sunshine...
16,500 more IRS agents needed to enforce Obamacare | Washington Examiner
new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the reconciliation bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ...
Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of government approved health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.





I have no regrets never voted for Obama, I'll leave that up to those that did.
"There is no gain in arguing with a poo flinging monkey. While his
gibbering and raucous cries of victory may seem obnoxious in your ears
as you walk away, he will soon be quietly sitting behind his bars again
and licking his own feces off his fingers as you carry on with your day."










And going from BAD to much WORSE--then is justifiable to you?--Bush ran up a deficit--so it's O.K. for Obama to bankrupt this country. That's your position--LOL? When the Bush tax cuts expire--not only will the so-called wealthy--if there are any left? in this country get hammered--but capital gains tax will go up--(therefore hitting seniors on their dividend checks and also the middle class who invest for their retirements.)
Now you peasants that are out there that are continually calling to "tax the rich" to pay for YOU. You must realise that only 5% of the working force in this country make 250K and only 1% of this country make over 300K per year. Hammering people at 250K is going to hit small business owners. And as we know small business in this country is the largest employer in this country. BTW--why don't you contribute that $400.00 you'll be getting from Obama back to the U.S. treasury? Maybe you could hire an employee with that additional $400.00--LOL? Currently 49% of this country pay no income tax what-so-ever. Meaning millions in the working middle class of this country. There is something wrong with this picture, and it's not because the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. It's because 49% pay no taxes at all. The wealthy in this country already pay 67% of the entire tax base.
Nose-diving to Obama's 41% current approval rating--proves again that this country is center-RIGHT. Most Americans consider themselves to be conservative. They don't over borrow--they do everything they can to make ends meet and follow a monthly budget. Contrary and opposite to Obama--Pelosi--and Reid--that have entered into this "flood the basement economic policy."
Adrian Rogers, 19311. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Right now--each and every household in America owes the Federal Government 100K, and by 2020 it is expected to rise to 170K. Obama's own CBO has stated that this debt is completely unsustainable. Have they stopped spending? NO! Have they tried to cut any waste out of government spending--though Obama's broken promise--"That he is going to do a line by line item budget cut on wasteful spending? NO! What we're hearing about is 2 million dollars out of the economic stimulus bill that went to a college to study the sex habits of college freshman girls. Wow--another great idea that we're paying for--along with an enormous list of other wasteful spending that amounts to billions.
In fact right after we had this 787 BILLION dollar economic stimulus bill shoved down our throats--the very next week Obama signed off on another 450 BILLION dollar Ominus bill--that was loaded with over 9000 earmarks, political pay-off's--favors--and goodies. This while he was stating we were in the worst economic crises since the Great Depression. He could have vetoed this bill--but he didn't. He claimed it was last years business--which Bush DIDN'T sign off on.
So don't give me this garbage that all of this is Bush's fault. It's clear the majority of Americans no longer agree with you.
You voted for it--You got it, and now you OWN it.
Earmarks-Signing-Statement.jpg
450 BILLION dollars up in smoke.
Last edited by Oreo; 08-04-2010 at 10:52 AM.


Screaming at the top of our bloody lungs. Voting straight ticket DEMOCRAT in 2006. (Bob Casey was totally worth my vote.) Screaming some more. Voting for The O in 2008. (This apparantly wasn't such a good idea...) Screaming some more.
I will stop screaming when someone besides Bob Casey (yes, I know there are others, but he's the only one I've actually voted for) actually does something about this bloody deficit.
Precisely how does letting people keep more of their own money equate to 'redistribution of wealth'?Under Bush, the people in my family who are in the middle class saw their taxes go up, not down, just like under Reagan.
There was a massive distribution of wealth from the bottom to the top under Bush, same as Reagan, and just because conservatives deny this fact doesn't mean it never happened.
And then, we'll see more of ourselves getting fired because our boss will be even more broke than he is now! NO THANK YOU!When the Bush tax cuts expire in January, people making just under $60,000 like me will actually see our taxes go down by another $400/year.
...?In the GOP's America, they'd like to see it look a lot more like Mexico than any other country on the planet, which is troubling. It's like conservatives just want a society of millionaires and the migrant workers who wipe their asses. Fuck the middle-class.
When you take money from someone at gunpoint and give it to someone else, it's called redistribution of wealth. Well, okay, you actually do have a point in regards to the bailouts. We were pissed, remember? A LOT of us voted O in 2008 because...we were pissed! But, this is NOT conservative economic theory, nor is it even remotely related to trickle down. This is flat out govermental robbery. And, as any capitalist will tell you, a very bad idea.I also can't accept this "redistribution of wealth" bullshit from a conservative, since nearly a trillion went upwards instead of "trickling down" like it was supposed to, which is another failed GOP economic theory.
Trickle down can function on a limited scale. Letting the tax cuts expire right now may not be such a good idea. You do know what happens when a business that's already laying people off due to lack of capital loses even more capital, right?
Yup, and liberals were pretty damn self satisfied back in 2006 and 2008 while a fuckload of conservatives...wait for it...voted for your guys! We were not placing a vote for Bush 2.0 economics, we were placing a vote against Bush 1.0 economics. We were kinda hoping to replace the first Bush with a Clinton (he was okay) but instead we got another fucking Bush!Conservatives are so smug and self-absorbed by their thinking that people are "awaking" to Obama, when it's really all about Obama losing his own crowd by not having a public option in the health care bill, and by not ending Gitmo or Afghanistan in a timeline more friendly to liberals.
And yes, a bunch of us also want out of Iraq. (But I'd imagine for different reasons...but we're right and you're wrong, but you won't realize this until after we've left. So, the guy who claimed that he would actually let us leave was the better choice at the time. In hindsight...) Oh, and um, the United States torturing detainees was a major and rather horrible change. The O made very specific promises in this regard, promises that alone would have earned my VERY conservative vote. Pissed, yeah, quite pissed.
And public option - I would have lived with it. It could have saved money. Especially since we wouldn't have had Canadians running our system. Which may likely be the problem with the Canadian system...
I'd imagine that quite a few people are not entirely pleased with the fairly massive increase in healthcare costs placed on already restrained budgets. Which he's done what about? (The restrained budgets I mean.) So yeah, good luck with that one.He's still poised to win a huge second-term victory. How do I know? Who is looking forward to having to run against the guy who finally gets to say, "I got health care for all"?
"I will lower healthcare costs so everyone can afford it" should do just fine against "I made you pay rediculous prices for healthcare for all."
Yeah, him not going nuts with the anti-gun crap I can live with. He said he'd chill on the gun thing, and he did. Good going O. But, bailouts are *not* "centre-right." Bailouts are "totally stupid," possibly "bad economics," and most certainly "shit Bush did that most everyone was angry about." The AIG response, not bad I gotta admit. Bush would have told the American people to suck it.Obama is not less popular now because America is secretly conservative; it's because America is actually secretly centre-left, but moderate lefties are disenfranchised with the President's constant centre-right actions, from individual mandates to a completely NRA-friendly gun stance.
Bad news, as long as kids in schools are reading the writings of our founding fathers, and reading about the cold war, this country is going to remain fairly capitalist. Obama won because he ran on an "I'm not Bush" platform. He's losing approval because he's governing from a "I am Bush" platform. I voted for him, and really did hope that he would be different, but alas, the new boss is the same as the old one.
Maybe 2012 will give us a decent candidate. Or, maybe we'll get yet another Bush. And maybe, America really is fucked. God knows Russia progessed themselves into irrelevance...maybe Canada will take over when America has...
(Perhaps we now have our definitive answer to the question - why do Canadians love the O?)


......but who cares about my stupid measly-ass little vote anyway. I left that up to everybody else. Judging by the options, I think American voters made a wise decision.![]()
http://www.irandefence.net/images/rating/rating_5.gifhttp://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...3e304742fd.jpghttp://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...cf6f4dd239.jpghttp://www.uspoliticsonline.com/imag...ine=1280107609
http://pic70.picturetrail.com/VOL182.../351424656.jpg...And you ate all my Mexican candy!!
Bookmarks