Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

    With both sides of Congress and the White House, Obama couldn't blame Republicans for the misery caused by tax hikes. It would be like obamacare but more easily repealed.

    ?


    • #17
      Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

      In the two full years before January 2011 (Jan 2009 - Dec 2010) the Democrats managed to pass only two pieces of major legislation: The (so called) stimulus bill, and the ACA. Since the (so called) stimulus bill was passed in March of 2009, the following 22 months saw but one major bill... the ACA.

      This has to be the worse record of any sitting Congress in the nations history.

      Had there been even the most basic LEADERSHIP on the Democratic side of the aisle, they should have been pumping major bills out at a rate of one a month... or at worse, one every other month.

      Single payer healthcare
      Free pre-school
      Total and complete ban on the owning of guns
      Free collage for all...
      Phase out of oil use over ten years, including a complete ban on drilling in the US
      Compete re-working of the tax code with a France inspired 75% top rate
      15.00/hr minimum wage
      Mandatory free abortions 24/7 for all women, up through the 35th week, no restrictions due to age, etc, etc.
      Cut military spending in half...

      But they did not...

      But more to the point is: why didn't they even try?

      This is the question of the ages... not only didn't the Democrats pass any of that, they didn't even try to pass any of it.

      We on the right are lucky in our enemies...

      ?


      • #18
        Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
        I'm not saying who did the blocking just that he tried to close it and was blocked so he can't be faulted for at least trying to fulfil his campaign promise. Personally I think it should be shut and all the prisoners either charged or released as we can hardly claim the moral high ground with it still open.
        Sure he can be faulted: not only did he promise the closing of Gitmo to gain a few political points, but he quickly rushed an executive order to close it without consulting with Congress-- and he got embarrased and outlined his inability to lead.

        ?


        • #19
          Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

          Originally posted by tsquare View Post
          In the two full years before January 2011 (Jan 2009 - Dec 2010) the Democrats managed to pass only two pieces of major legislation: The (so called) stimulus bill, and the ACA. Since the (so called) stimulus bill was passed in March of 2009, the following 22 months saw but one major bill... the ACA.
          They also got the Equal pay bill through, but don't forget in the midst of all this the Senate confirmed 2 high court justices, too.

          This has to be the worse record of any sitting Congress in the nations history.
          In the old days the body wasn't even in session full time, so...

          Had there been even the most basic LEADERSHIP on the Democratic side of the aisle, they should have been pumping major bills out at a rate of one a month... or at worse, one every other month.
          Meh, they struggled so much with healthcare it drained every bit of capital everyone had.

          Single payer healthcare
          They barely even managed the ACA!

          Free pre-school
          Too busy wanting to abort the babies in the first place...

          Total and complete ban on the owning of guns
          For that, along with the Cap and trade stuff etc, there were way too many Dems on the Blue dog side who would have and did say no. They barely managed parts of healthcare.

          Free collage for all...
          They did manage to re-negotiate the terms of the student loans rate recently, and that was under GOP leadership of the house.

          Phase out of oil use over ten years, including a complete ban on drilling in the US
          They didn't approve Keystone, blocked new permits, gave billions to green energy firms etc etc.

          Compete re-working of the tax code with a France inspired 75% top rate
          That happened after the first 2 years of Obama's time in office. But in the end he did get some compromise on taxes, again with a GOP house.

          15.00/hr minimum wage
          That is the one place they have totally failed...and let's face it, Bush did a better job than they did in hiking the wage up in 06 or whenever it was.

          Mandatory free abortions 24/7 for all women, up through the 35th week, no restrictions due to age, etc, etc.
          His support of the inferiority crowd has been immense, he got his Chris Matthews moment (Tingling specialty) when he thought something "special" was going down in Texas. He screwed his own healthcare bill over when it came to contraception, he frittered away the Catholic vote, he ended up coming close to shutting the government down the first time over other but mainly planned parenthood riders, truth me, this guy's lust for a butcher to the womb policy has never ever been in doubt.

          Cut military spending in half...
          Again, the Sequester was his idea...

          But they did not...

          But more to the point is: why didn't they even try?

          This is the question of the ages... not only didn't the Democrats pass any of that, they didn't even try to pass any of it.

          We on the right are lucky in our enemies...
          Not so much ; he just chose to not have the public fights...like over Libya he chose no oversight, with immigration he gives waivers and amnesty etc. He gets it done, but doesn't want the fight of taking the case to the American people which is why i worry about liberalism remaining a minority forever.

          His Chicago way is fine but if we can't argue our point then obviously it is hard to make the case for it which is why everything come with a certain shame. Its kind of like Clooney said...the wolves in sheep's clothing made liberalism a dirty word. We don't all have the shame of it that he does. Just the shame of association with the likes of him, in our name.

          ?


          • #20
            Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

            Originally posted by kramer View Post
            There was a period of time right after Obama was elected when Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate. Given all of the recent vast talk and articles on the gap between the rich and the poor in the US, the 1%, etc., why didn't democrats slap tax increases on the rich?

            Is it because many control freaks (democrats) are rich?
            I believe the answer is yes.

            All we got out of that time of democrat control was a shitty health care bill that has the middle class picking up a huge part of the tab. And not to mention more articles and discussions about the gap in wealth in the US, the rich 1%, etc...
            The reason is probably that even the Dems knew increasing taxes after a financial led crash and the ensuing recession would not help in pulling this economy out of where it is.

            This ever increasing disparity in income from the top to the middle and upper lower class actually has a relevant cause. And it doesn't have a thing to do with tax rates, IMO.

            That sucking sound created first by NAFTA and then with the deals with communist china is much of the cause in the shrinkage of the middle, the rise of poverty as the top folks have seen their income increase the most it has in my life time.

            In fact this nation cannot afford to provide the safety nets for displaced workers. The safety nets were not created to replace living wage jobs, or to take up the slack that was and is still being created by corporations chasing poor people to be exploited for their labor overseas, while retaining access to our consumer market.

            If a nation's business sector does not employ its own people, what you see today will be the inevitable result of such insanity. I have been harping on this since I have been here, but only do that because of this tremendous structural flaw in our current economic model. We will eventually have to decide as a people, whether we will allow business to operate with only the maximization of profit as the only goal for their existence, or if we see them as we used to. As an important part of America's strength and health, and not simply instruments of self serving for the CEOs and stockholders. We will have to revert to another way of looking at corporations and the making of profits. Unless this happens there is no cure for the current problems.

            This is something that even the simplest dirt farmer would have told you in the past. But only because it is just common sense. You cannot export millions of jobs so that the MNCs might profit more, while ignoring what this does to America and her hundreds of millions of average people who are not rich, but have to work to survive.

            Of course the right side will chime in and maintain that millions of jobs left because of our tax rates. But that won't fly. It has always been about labor costs, the greatest cost traditionally in manufacturing. If given a choice to pay 80 cents an hour to a communist, or 18 bucks an hour for the same job to an American, most big business today will opt for the former, IF YOU ALLOW THEM. It really is a no brainer. But only if you also allow them to retain access to our markets as they have always had, when making what we consume here, using americans. The MNCs broke a relationship with the American people, for greater profits. And that is all that this amounts to. Yet others will spend hours trying to blame it on something else, when it is such a simple thing to comprehend. If course china doesn't have the same EPA standards, as you can see in looking at their industrial cities. So there is a savings to make our goods there because manufacturers are not held responsible for the pollution that makes humans sick.

            I voted for Perot, because I was in business, and I knew exactly what he was talking about. That giant sucking sound of jobs, middle class jobs leaving this nation with mostly non living wage jobs used to replace those jobs lost. When we had a change in economic models long ago, when people moved from farming into manufacturing, that sector had the ability to raise up standards of living, and employ a helluva lot of people. There was no such entity in place when we once again saw a change in economic models. And so what you see today is the result of that change, and it will bankrupt this nation so that a few might max out their profits by no longer employing americans. That in the end is the cost of allowing American business to employ others instead of americans. But it is not complicated enough as an idea and so many just won't accept it because of the simplicity of it. Things can no longer be simple, everything has to be complex. Simple things have become untruths, and if it ain't complex and complicated, well it just ain't true.

            When you cannot tax the rich enough to make up for the damage they caused to America, you are in deep do do. And it isn't helped at all when MNCs don't bring profits back to be taxed. And we have allowed that to happen, and we continue to allow it to take place. As we allowed American business to move to where the labor is the cheapest, which is coincidently in areas where there are hundreds of millions who were dirt poor and even starving at times. First to mexico until even cheaper labor could be found in a communist state. This economic model will bankrupt this nation and she will eventually implode if we do not take back the reins from big money interests who really don't give a shit about America or her people. We cannot allow greed to form and buy America's economic model any longer. But who will change that? Not the dems nor the repubs. So a house cleaning is in order in the future when the American people finally throw their ideological beliefs to the ditch and demand common sense again from our leaders. And to make them stop destroying America's middle class by being open to those political donations from those treasonous MNCs who now are in reality Virtual States.

            ?


            • #21
              Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

              So just watch this and insert Budget where they say Beef.

              5 Years No Budget - WTF?

              Where&#39;s the Beef - YouTube

              ?


              • #22
                Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

                Strange. Looking at taxing successful people and corporations as a 'fix'.

                It just strikes me as strange that anyone would consider raising taxes as a 'fix' for anything, except continued big government growth, continued big government intervention and interference, and continued big government distortion of the markets, to their detriment.

                We've tried this big government model since 2008, and it's not really produced a better economic situation, and really has only produced greater dependency on government.

                How about we try the small government model now?

                ?


                • #23
                  Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                  I'm not saying who did the blocking just that he tried to close it and was blocked so he can't be faulted for at least trying to fulfil his campaign promise. Personally I think it should be shut and all the prisoners either charged or released as we can hardly claim the moral high ground with it still open.
                  You're confused. The title of the thread as about Dems AND Obama, not just Obama. Also, Obama could have closed GITMO, regardless, w/o any involvement of Congress. All he would have had to do was put the prisoners on a military transport and drop them off in Afghanistan or some other such place. Fact is, he didn't really try. He did say "it would be simple to close GITMO". Those were his own words, so we know he can't accomplish a simple task.

                  ?


                  • #24
                    Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

                    Assuming Afghanistan or some country would take them...

                    ?


                    • #25
                      Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

                      Assuming that the prisoners that you drop off wouldn't just go and attack our troops 5 minutes after they were dropped off.

                      In a summary report, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said that 27.9 percent of the 599 former detainees released from Guantanamo were either confirmed or suspected of later engaging in militant activity.


                      The figures represent a 2.9 percent rise over a 25 percent aggregate recidivism rate reported by the intelligence czar's office in December 2010.
                      Recidivism rises among released Guantanamo detainees | Reuters

                      So figure that 1/3 of the people that you release you'll have to face again on the battlefield. Most likely in a leadership role.

                      Doesn't it make more sense to keep them in Gitmo?
                      Last edited by eohrnberger; 11-17-2013, 09:56 AM.

                      ?


                      • #26
                        Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

                        Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                        Assuming Afghanistan or some country would take them...
                        Who really gives a shit? We bomb the crap of all of them anyways.

                        ?


                        • #27
                          Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

                          This time we can do it without terrorists instead of bombs?

                          ?


                          • #28
                            Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

                            Originally posted by kramer View Post
                            There was a period of time right after Obama was elected when Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate. Given all of the recent vast talk and articles on the gap between the rich and the poor in the US, the 1%, etc., why didn't democrats slap tax increases on the rich?

                            Is it because many control freaks (democrats) are rich?
                            I believe the answer is yes.

                            All we got out of that time of democrat control was a shitty health care bill that has the middle class picking up a huge part of the tab. And not to mention more articles and discussions about the gap in wealth in the US, the rich 1%, etc...
                            Wow....lol....I actually thought I was reading a poster have a moment of clarity, objectivity and honesty.

                            But I wasn't surprised it ended up being an attempt to confirm your bias.

                            ?


                            • #29
                              Re: Why didnt dems raise taxes on the rich when they had the House and Senate under Obama

                              Originally posted by 9aces View Post
                              You guys don't get it. There's a reason the US Tax code isn't 4 pages, which would be quite sufficient to do the job.

                              The reason being, that's how congresscritters get paid. Writing in exceptions to it.
                              +
                              Unless the tax codes are made into an amendment, they will be loop-holed into something counterproductive.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X