[jariel]

Quote:

I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bachm...51199.html

Ya Michele, that's it, or maybe's it just the HAARP doing it's job.

[jariel]

My bad I thought I was in the everything else forum.

[Kickb]

My mom said something like that to her friend who lives in NC.

"EARTHQUAKES? FIRES?!!?, This is getting biblical, we all better our ducks in a row."

Spoken with a serious tone

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Replace the word 'government is' with 'women are' and this might actually make some sense!

[Gmac]

Sorry, but once someone uses the word god, jesus, or biblical, I immediately stop taking them seriously altogether.

[ManAbout]

Hey, she very well could be your next president.

I thought it couldn't get any worse than Bush, but apparently it can.

[speakeasy]

Repeat after me folks....Obama 2012! Obama 2012! Obama 2012! Please anything but these religious kooks.

[Gmac]

No Obama, no Bachmann... Fuck I'd rather have Mitt Romney at this point.

[Basil Ransom]

She was joking, she claims.

I was more disturbed by her promise to bring gas down to $2 a gallon. These aren't student council elections where you lie through your teeth and promise three hours of recess and pizza for lunch everyday.

[blurb]

Huh? You guys still follow politics? I gave up politics a long time ago when I realized that none of them really cared about me and acted in their self-interests. Have you researched the amount of corruption that goes on in government? I'd vote, but there's no one good to vote for.

[username]

(08-30-2011 01:01 AM)blurb Wrote:  

Huh? You guys still follow politics? I gave up politics a long time ago when I realized that none of them really cared about me and acted in their self-interests. Have you researched the amount of corruption that goes on in government? I'd vote, but there's no one good to vote for.

QFT, totally agree.

[Samseau]

(08-29-2011 08:33 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Repeat after me folks....Obama 2012! Obama 2012! Obama 2012! Please anything but these religious kooks.

NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY! YEAH! OBAMA 2012!

Quote:

Huh? You guys still follow politics? I gave up politics a long time ago when I realized that none of them really cared about me and acted in their self-interests. Have you researched the amount of corruption that goes on in government? I'd vote, but there's no one good to vote for.

A vote for Ron Paul is a big "Fuck You" to the government... Ron Paul will never win, that's why I'm voting for him.

[cellblock4]

(08-30-2011 01:01 AM)blurb Wrote:  

Huh? You guys still follow politics? I gave up politics a long time ago when I realized that none of them really cared about me and acted in their self-interests. Have you researched the amount of corruption that goes on in government? I'd vote, but there's no one good to vote for.

I too have given up on politics and believe it's all a sham. Going forward, I'll vote republican only because I hope they will lower taxes and I get to keep more of my money and I'll have more control and discretion over my life/finances. (For the record, I voted for Obama).

[jariel]

Agreed on the politics are a sham.

Presidents are selected, not elected.

[speakeasy]

(08-30-2011 11:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY! YEAH! OBAMA 2012!

I know it's a right-wing talking point to make Obama out as this reckless spender, but the facts don't bear that out:

http://politicaltruths.info/2011/04/25/t...rance.aspx

Anyway I was just being a bit tongue in cheek with my previous comment. Apropos, laying things all to blame on Obama is ridiculous:



About 70% of the debt is being caused by the Bush era tax cuts/Reaganomics and revenue shortfall caused by the recession itself. The remainder is the wars which Obama did not start but inherited and recovery measures like TARP which BOTH parties would've enacted anyway.

[speakeasy]

(08-30-2011 11:58 AM)cellblock4 Wrote:  

I too have given up on politics and believe it's all a sham. Going forward, I'll vote republican only because I hope they will lower taxes and I get to keep more of my money and I'll have more control and discretion over my life/finances. (For the record, I voted for Obama).

Unless you make over $250,000 a year, nobody is even talking raising your taxes.

[jariel]

(08-30-2011 04:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Unless you make over $250,000 a year, nobody is even talking raising your taxes.

Ya except for that pesky largest increase on the tobacco tax in U.S. history in 2009.

What class of people predominately smokes grits?

Need to look deeper at shit before reciting the administration's talking points, as if they're really trying to tell people the truth.

[Caramel Communist]

(08-30-2011 04:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-30-2011 11:58 AM)cellblock4 Wrote:  

I too have given up on politics and believe it's all a sham. Going forward, I'll vote republican only because I hope they will lower taxes and I get to keep more of my money and I'll have more control and discretion over my life/finances. (For the record, I voted for Obama).

Unless you make over $250,000 a year, nobody is even talking raising your taxes.

the greatest sales job ever...surprised roosh hasn't posted on it...how the right can convince poor - middle class to defend billionaires...one of the greatest sales jobs in history. It is amazing when you think about it...1 percent has convinced 99 percent to support their position with out lifting one finger....

[speakeasy]

(08-30-2011 04:21 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(08-30-2011 04:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Unless you make over $250,000 a year, nobody is even talking raising your taxes.

Ya except for that pesky largest increase on the tobacco tax in U.S. history in 2009.

I'm talking about income tax, not purely voluntary behavior like buying cigarettes. Afterall, nobody is forcing you to buy cigarettes.

caramel communist Wrote:

the greatest sales job ever...surprised roosh hasn't posted on it...how the right can convince poor - middle class to defend billionaires...one of the greatest sales jobs in history. It is amazing when you think about it...1 percent has convinced 99 percent to support their position with out lifting one finger....

Seriously man. Americans are like trained lambs. Read this article and let it soak in for a minute and you're just floored:
http://www.good.is/post/the-400-richest-...-combined/

But Obama is some kind of evil commie/muslim/socialist for wanting to reform health care! I don't think there's a country in the world were a situation like this exist where lower income people vote in favor of the wealthy people's interests. I think maybe it goes back to the protestant ethic where people tend to look down on those faring poorly because poverty is seen as a failure in work ethic(which admittedly it is some cases). In the rest of the world people are more likely to have a sociological view of poverty. Now throw in Reaganomics which basically says what's good for the rich is good for us all and you have America.

[cellblock4]

(08-30-2011 04:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-30-2011 11:58 AM)cellblock4 Wrote:  

I too have given up on politics and believe it's all a sham. Going forward, I'll vote republican only because I hope they will lower taxes and I get to keep more of my money and I'll have more control and discretion over my life/finances. (For the record, I voted for Obama).

Unless you make over $250,000 a year, nobody is even talking raising your taxes.

Agreed, but if you are married (I know people shuddered on this board) your household income could be that. Allow me to elaborate.

First of all, I liked Obama and voted for him because I thought he was centrist and could bridge the gap between the radical sides in DC and make strides towards rebalancing the distribution of wealth in this country, get us out of useless wars, and focus on the economy. Nothing in my opinion is sustainable in the long run if you have a radical approach one way or the other. I genuinely believe he tried to do the right thing given HIS ideology (too liberal IMO), but so far it hasn’t worked and all we’ve done is rack up a huge deficit, and yes W did his damage too. The economy is still on very shaky ground and likely to regress into a recession again and we have nothing to show for all the money we’ve spent. I will concede that some of the money was spent and perhaps averted a depression, but that’s conjecture that I won’t get into. Sometimes the government needs to learn to get out of the way.

Back to taxes: I don't only mean federal income taxes, I’m also referring to corporate taxes, sales tax, city/state taxes, etc. I don’t make 250k but we all pay a lot in federal/state/city taxes. For example, I pay about $350/month in nyc city tax. Those taxes supposedly go to schools, subway, infrastructure, etc. yet the schools are making more cuts, the subway is a disaster, and infrastructure and nyc should not be in the same sentence. Corporations also pay a decent share of taxes and yet the city, state, and federal governments always seem to be in perpetual deficits. I have no problem paying taxes for basic things such as national defense, infrastructure, and a basic safety net for when people hit hard times. But the government continues to siphon money from its citizens, with less and less to show for it every year, at some point you have to ask “where does this money go?”

Ultimately what I’m saying is, for ME this isn’t about Obama or Bush, or Democrat vs. Republican. I don’t believe in our political system and our elected officials. IMO they’ve polarized the country and perform political theatre on CNN and Fox News and rile up the morons who tune in for it. So from that standpoint I’d rather not pay any more in taxes. I don’t believe in Reganomics either and have no problem with a base level of national healthcare, but that’s not really my point. I want to decouple myself from our political system, not support politicians with my hard earned money until enough frustration from our citizens drives real change in this country.

[speakeasy]

Cellblock, I sympathize with much of what you wrote above. Only place I differ is that I think $250k a year is quite a bit of money,even for an expensive state. It would put you in the top 2% of households.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...-rich.html

[Samseau]

(08-30-2011 04:08 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-30-2011 11:44 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY! YEAH! OBAMA 2012!

I know it's a right-wing talking point to make Obama out as this reckless spender, but the facts don't bear that out:

http://politicaltruths.info/2011/04/25/t...rance.aspx

Anyway I was just being a bit tongue in cheek with my previous comment. Apropos, laying things all to blame on Obama is ridiculous:



About 70% of the debt is being caused by the Bush era tax cuts/Reaganomics and revenue shortfall caused by the recession itself. The remainder is the wars which Obama did not start but inherited and recovery measures like TARP which BOTH parties would've enacted anyway.

Come on, you believe that Congressional Budget Office? They're the ones who've been predicting 3%+ GDP growth for 2011! And right now we're entering a recession!

The CBO said that without the stimulus and bailouts, our unemployment would go above 7%. It went above 10% and is stuck above 9%!

The CBO is a propaganda machine that continuously spouts lies no matter who is office. Back in 2006, they said we would have budget surpluses in 2008!

My guess is that had tax-rates been increased, we would have had just as much of a deficit. The Democrats would have increased spending to match increased revenues: that is all. Moreover, with increased taxes there would be less corporate profits which means less revenues to tax. Increased tax rates might mean less revenues for the government, but I bet the CBO never considered that! They just project the current situation into the future and never adjust for changing variables. Completely worthless, the CBO should be abolished.


The facts are very simple. If the Democrats or Republicans are re-elected to office, we will go bankrupt. The Democrats will do it faster, but they will all get us there.


Note:

Please, do not call me right-wing or left-wing... all those terms are meaningless bullshit designed to make us fight each other, instead of the bankers that are sucking the country dry.

Focus on the real issue: massive government spending. Take away this spending and the threat of hyperinflation is removed.

[speakeasy]

(08-31-2011 02:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The facts are very simple. If the Democrats or Republicans are re-elected to office, we will go bankrupt. The Democrats will do it faster, but they will all get us there.

I don't think that's a fair claim. We did have a balanced budget under Clinton. Of course I realize he shouldn't get 100% of the credit, but our current situation can be explained by disastrous policies of the previous administration. Slashing taxes for the wealthy while launching two massively expensive wars. So to act like both parties are equally responsible for the current situation is misleading in my opinion. I btw am a registered independant, I vote democrat in some elections and republican in others, I'm not carrying anyone's water or drinking koolaid. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Then there are the entitlement programs Medicaid and Medicare that are on autopilot and becoming more expensive as boomers are just now entering retirement years. Nothing you can really do about that expense.

Quote:

Focus on the real issue: massive government spending. Take away this spending and the threat of hyperinflation is removed.

You made me curious about something. I just searched for figures that would rank US government spending as a percentage of GDP compared to other nations. I found these right here: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/go...ge-of.html

I was actually surprised. Despite all the rhetoric from libertarians and economic right-wingers about how massive the U.S. government is and how much they spend, as a proportion of GDP, we're pretty damn far down on the list. I think it's important to compare where we are in relation to other nations to get some perspective. So if we are not huge spenders compared to other nations, then why are we in so much debt? In my opinion, it's because our system is basically designed to facilitate the movement of wealth upward and to shelter the wealth from trickling back down either by wage growth or any form of revenue collection. As Warren Buffett would even point out, our system taxes heavily on income, i.e. people who work for a living, but it taxes lightly on capital gains and people who make money off of other people's money, and the latter are the ones making massive sums of money. That is the only place the economy is growing. At the TOP. That's why I want to pull my hair out when Bubba the cashier at Walmart decides to vote Republican/Libertarian because he's "sick of taxes." He might get back $500 a year while some banker that foreclosed on his home gets back millions. On the GINI index, the U.S. ranks between Ghana and Senegal when it comes to how evenly wealth is distributed. Like I said before, the top 400 richest households in America have more combined wealth than the bottom 50% of the society. Yet their tax contribution is going down. England is the only other Western country with a ratio similar to ours, but people over there are rioting in the streets over it. At least their people recognize class and concentration of wealth as a major issue. In America, it's simply not even an issue for discussion. Anyone that brings the matter is up is labeled a communist or something and discredited. So I guess in 2012 America will probably oust Obama and put in someone who thinks the wealthy are overburdened and need even more tax cuts. They're now repackaging Reaganomics as "don't tax the job creators!"

[blurb]

I'm not fooled. For a supposedly traditional "conservative" politician like Sarah Palin, she seems to have strong feminist tendencies. I smell a feminist underneath...

Don't know about Bachmann yet...

Oh yeah, for the record, who do ya'll think is hotter? Palin or Bachmann? I say Bachmann even though she's kinda old.

[Samseau]

(08-31-2011 07:21 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(08-31-2011 02:40 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The facts are very simple. If the Democrats or Republicans are re-elected to office, we will go bankrupt. The Democrats will do it faster, but they will all get us there.

I don't think that's a fair claim. We did have a balanced budget under Clinton.

Clinton had a Republic congress when the budget surpluses came in.

Bush had a Republican congress when the budget deficits became huge.

Obama had a Democrat congress when the budget deficits went exponential.

There's no relationship between those in charge and whether or not government spending goes up. The trend is very simple: Up, up, and away.

Quote:

Then there are the entitlement programs Medicaid and Medicare that are on autopilot and becoming more expensive as boomers are just now entering retirement years. Nothing you can really do about that expense.

Don't worry, people are gonna be disappointed in 10-15 years when all of their "benefits" aren't worth shit, because they are being paid in worthless US dollars. The same thing happened to USSR pensioners after it went bankrupt.

Quote:

Quote:

Focus on the real issue: massive government spending. Take away this spending and the threat of hyperinflation is removed.

You made me curious about something. I just searched for figures that would rank US government spending as a percentage of GDP compared to other nations. I found these right here: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/go...ge-of.html

1. That's from 2008. Government spending after 2008 jumped over 10%.

2. One of the commenters on that blog post pointed out the obvious:

Quote:

Total government spending in the United States is just less than 39% (see BEA GDP calculations). Your 19% number misses all the state and local spending that goes on in the US.

Completely dishonest blog. Doesn't include state and local spending into government figures.

Quote:

Like I said before, the top 400 richest households in America have more combined wealth than the bottom 50% of the society. Yet their tax contribution is going down.

1. The top richest pay the most taxes because government programs, laws, and regulations have made them rich. Do you think Bank of America and Goldman Sachs would be profitable without their bailouts? Do you think Exxon would be so profitable without the regulations surrounding the oil industry?

Do you?

2. Their tax contribution is going down because they keep their capital stashed overseas, so the government cannot tax it. They are using other countries to exploit this country.

Fix the rigged game that supports big corporations who make up the Top 400, and they will be unable to maintain their positions of power. Raising taxes is laughable when there are so many other ways the government supports them.