DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 28, 2011, 12:06:38 PM
-
For those Republican presidential candidates who eventually conclude there is no path to the nomination, there is consolation in the notion that they won't be the ones to face the brutal onslaught being prepared for the GOP king of the mountain by Team Obama and their army of "objective" media allies.
This time around, the Obama machine cannot run on the fairy dust of Hope and Change. They cannot suggest after four years of dreadful executive-branch performance, the Promised One is on the horizon. Their only path to victory is the one that finds their opponents even more disliked. So it can be guaranteed that whoever wins the Republican contest will face one of the most scorching personal assaults the country has ever witnessed.
Occasionally, the old-style thrill-up-my-leg-over-Obama quote still emerges. The Media Research Center's "Best of Notable Quotables" winners for 2011 provides examples. Stephen Marche of Esquire magazine won over judges of the "Obamagasm Award" by energetically asking "can we just take a month or two to contemplate him the way we might contemplate a painting by Vermeer or a guitar lick by the early-seventies Rolling Stones or a Peyton Manning pass or any other astounding, ecstatic human achievement"? At least when they said this in 2008, it hadn't been completely disproved. Marche reminds us of Baghdad Bob, the ridiculous propagandist for Saddam, proclaiming the defeat of allied troops while they emerged around the corner.
Marche actually claimed we will look back decades from now and see "a glorious idyll in American politics, with a confident, intelligent, fascinating president riding the surge of his prodigious talents from triumph to triumph." Someone hearing Marche declare this might rush him to an emergency-room for signs of dementia.
The winner of MRC's "Media Hero Award" came forward as the congressional career of Anthony Weiner was about to end after having demonstrated his contempt for his wife by showing off his body parts all over Twitter (and actually tweet-exchanging with high school
girls).
ABC's Barbara Walters urged Weiner not to resign, citing as her role model the most shameless, brazen sex offender to ever darken the White House door. "And we had a President named Bill Clinton who went through a great deal of trouble, weathered the storm and is now not
only respected, but he?s beloved by many people with a very good marriage. So, I think Anthony Weiner should hang in there." Bad choice of word -- hang.
ABC is chock-full of nonsense like this. Their evening-news anchor Diane Sawyer won the "Occupy My Heart and Soul Award" for lathering praise on the anti-capitalist park squatters. "We thought we'd bring you up to date on those protesters, the Occupy Wall Street movement," she panted. "As of tonight, it has spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries' every continent but Antarctica." There are some 190 countries on Earth, but Sawyer earned points on the Left for enthusiastic baloney. Days later, Sawyer restrained her hype to "more than a thousand cities around the world." Anywhere two hippies lifted a sheet of tagboard, they were counted as a burgeoning global "reform" movement.
Katie Couric finally conceded her utter failure as anchor of the "CBS Evening News" in May, but she won the "Audacity of Dopes Award for the Wackiest Analysis" by concluding America was so deeply bigoted and consumed by "seething hatred" toward the world's Muslims that we
need a sitcom to straighten ourselves out. "Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show....I know that sounds crazy. But The Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African-Americans in this country, and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don't
understand."
Loathing of Obama was still classified daily as transparent racism, and Sean Penn won the "Barbra Streisand Political IQ Award for Celebrity Vapidity" by reading Tea Party minds on CNN and projecting murder fantasies: "You have what I call the "Get the N-word out of the
White House party," the Tea Party.... At the end of the day, there's a big bubble coming out of their heads saying, you know, "Can we just lynch him?"
The transition from Obama adoration to Republican defenestration was exemplified by Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who earned the "Mean-Spirited, Nutty, Blathering Chris Award" for just blurting out against Newt Gingrich, "But he looks like a car bomber. He looks like
a car bomber, Clarence. He looks like a car bomber. He's got that crazy Mephistophelian grin of his. He looks like he loves torturing. Look at the guy! I mean this is not the face of a President."
But the real award-winning quote (for denying liberal bias) was this delusional Matthews gem captured by Politico: "Hardball is absolutely non-partisan."
2012, here we go.
[e-mail)
-
The Republicans have no acceptable candidates. But beyond that, they have no plan. They are the Stupid Party, the Party of No, the anti-evolutionist Party, the Science Deniers, the Homophobic Party.
It will be amusing to watch them lose and tear another apart.
-
The Republicans have no acceptable candidates. But beyond that, they have no plan. They are the Stupid Party, the Party of No, the anti-evolutionist Party, the Science Deniers, the Homophobic Party. It will be amusing to watch them lose and tear another apart.
The Taxocrats have no acceptable candidate, beyond that they have no plan. They are the anti-American Party, the Party of yes to more taxes & even bigger government, they are anti-business, anti-education/anti-child so they can enrich unions, they are the Occupy Party as in Occupy our Wallets, and it will be interesting to watch them lose the White House as well as the US Senate. (Thanks Senator Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson!)
-
Bullshit!
President Obama has always had a plan. And a far better one than the Teabagger morons.
-
RUSH LIMBAUGH NAILED IT!
(listen at 33 second mark)
Bribing Ben Nelson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBUjCNwaBfs#ws)
-
Bullshit! President Obama has always had a plan.
Yeah for a bogey on hole 9!
(http://einhornpress.com/images/OBAMA%203%20GOLF%20LABEL.JPG)
(http://www.moonbattery.com/ObamaDeficit.jpg)
-
Stupid photos and propaganda convinces no one.
The debt will increase until taxes are raised. The Republicans have no way of doing this, as they all suck up to Norquist.
-
Bullshit!
President Obama has always had a plan.
Yea, apparently it was to put us in the worst possible economic position as possible. His plan was to "fundamentally change America". The plan wasn't to improve America, it was to change it
And a far better one than the Teabagger morons.
Those "teabaggers" have been able to impose the greatest plan possible.....stopping Obama's
And here's a news flash for Xo....those republicans have several plans, passed by the house, with complete support of the Senate Republicans and several Democrats as well, ready to go....all of them sitting on Senator Reid's desk, gathering dust, not even being allowed to be voted on. So much for the garbage about party of no plan
-
The garbage is the plans they have presented: Tax cuts to raise revenue, fewer environmental regulations sop we can have more BP oil spills, fewer wall street regulations so we can have another mortgage crisis.
The Republcan Party: All Garbage, All the time.
-
Yea, everything to remove the blanket of stench and uncertainty that Obama & company have imposed. But no, Obama's plan is to change america, and damn any repercussions and damage to our economy, not to mention our standing in the World
Democrat Party: We'll take care of you, no matter how worse off it makes you
But at least we can put aside the lie of party of no plan for the GOP, and lay it squarely on Senator Reid's desk. If these plans are so bad, why not let his Senate Democrats vote on them?? How do you wiggle out of that one
-
Lots of bills get tabled. It is a sure thing that Boehmer has a lot of Democratic Party bills on his desk as well.
It is a sure thing that the GOP has nothing useful. Most of these bills are stupid posturing.
-
Lots of bills get tabled. It is a sure thing that Boehmer has a lot of Democratic Party bills on his desk as well.
Like what? Examples please. Your say so, just isn't going to hold water, when it comes to claims of supposed nefarious GOP acts. Anything tabled by Boehner, for political purposes, gets my full condemnation. That includes the attempt he made to table the horrible 2 month payroll taxcut extension
So, redirecting the deflection attempt, if these bills are "so bad" as you claim, why is Reid keeping them from being voted on??
It is a sure thing that the GOP has nothing useful. Most of these bills are stupid posturing.
Then let the Senate vote on them, if that's all they are. You see, that's where your house of cards keeps crashing. Can't claim these bills are so bad, since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and could vote accordingly. The only "stupid posturing" here, is the cowardice of Reid, and what just might get passed, that then becomes Obama's problematic nightmare
-
The debt will increase until taxes are raised.
It isnt that the American People are not taxed enough,
it's the Gvt spends too much.
-
That'd be an exponential understatement
But here's the rub, the ONLY way that debt will decrease under the guise of raising taxes, is if EVERYONE'S taxes are raised, and not just "on the rich", or the "1%". That means, even those who pay next to nothing in taxes, will have to pay more. Not only is that infinately more fair, but is the ONLY way the debt could be brought down, with that tactic
But, you think Xo and the Dems will try to run that truck off the political cliff? Not on your life...its tax the rich or bust, which ironically, would be synonymous
-
If you tax the poor, who already spend all their income, it will result in them not spending the money you have taken away by taxing them. With less money in the system, the economy will not suffer.
If you tax the rich, they will continue to consume as much as always. They will buy less stock and bonds. And the economy will NOT suffer. They are the ones who have benefited most from the increased productivity in the last 20 years, so it is only fair to tax them more. They have more and are increasing their share of the national wealth. It is too bad that the ratbag right cannot understand this. It really is rather logical and easy to understand.
-
If you tax the rich, they will continue to consume as much as always.
They will buy less stock and bonds. And the economy will NOT suffer.
Oh yeah....it's better for the economy
to take money from the productive
and send it to the unproductive in Washington
where they spend it soooooo wisely....LOL
rather than building homes, buying boats,
buying furniture, being a consumer of goods right here at home.
Yep I bet the blue collar folks working in furniture
stores would rather me send my money to the corrupt
Washington thieves that can send it to our enemies
in the Gaza and in Pakistan rather than come into their
furniture store and buy stuff where they would get
commission/salary/jobs.
People dont buy stocks and bonds in North Korea
either....we see how well your anti-business
model works.
Stocks and bonds create capital and wealth
that is used and spent in the economy
which is better than what Washington
can do with it.
-
Besides taxing the rich wont work.....
The U.S. national debt is rising, on average, by $3.95 billion per day since September 28, 2007.
If Warren Buffett were to offer his estimated $47 billion to the I.R.S. the federal government
would use the Buffett fortune up in about 12 days.
-
If you tax the rich, they will continue to consume as much as always. They will buy less stock and bonds. And the economy will NOT suffer. They are the ones who have benefited most from the increased productivity in the last 20 years, so it is only fair to tax them more. They have more and are increasing their share of the national wealth. It is too bad that the ratbag right cannot understand this. It really is rather logical and easy to understand.
One fatal flaw to that plan.....not enough of your despised "1%" to even dent the debt. And as the left tries to raise taxes even higher on "the rich", when they realize the debt isn't coming down by any appreciable amount, those higher taxes then go into a futher degradation of both the job market ("the rich" not expanding), and in products purchased ("the rich" not purchasing as much) --> a decrease in payroll, income and sales tax revenue
Your definition of fairness is so mutated, its a wonder you were allowed to teach anything related to language.
-
WSJ shows taxing the rich won't cover the bill
Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008.
The top 1% of taxpayers those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000 paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion Obama White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.
Say we take it up to the top 10% of taxpayers, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.
In 2005 the top 5% earned over $145,000. If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren't nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama's entitlement state ambitions' even before his health-care plan kicks in.
In other words, a soak-the-rich policy won't work, in part because there isn't enough rich to soak, and in part because the bill is just too high.
-
The Wall Street Journal is on the side of the rich? Horrors!
They should tax their sorry asses anyway.
-
They should tax their sorry asses anyway.
and FINALLY......a little honesty. Has prescious little to do with "fairness" or bringing down the debt. This really boils down to punishment. Damn those "rich folks" for daring to be successful, and earning more of what someone else believes they should have.
-
it is fair to tax their sorry asses because they have glommed nearly all of the increase in productivity in the last 20 years.
-
EAT THE RICH! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ#ws)
-
it is fair to tax their sorry asses because they have glommed nearly all of the increase in productivity in the last 20 years.
No, it's NOT fair, since
- they ALREADY are taxed higher than everyone else
- raising their taxes alone will NOT bring the debt down in any substantial way
- raising their taxes even more will lead to DECREASED income, sales, and payroll tax $$$'s
But yea, let's tax their sorry asses anyway :o
-
it is fair to tax their sorry asses because they have glommed nearly all of the increase in productivity in the last 20 years.
How much are these guys responsible for increase in productivity?
-
If you tax the poor, who already spend all their income, it will result in them not spending the money you have taken away by taxing them. With less money in the system, the economy will not suffer.
If you tax the rich, they will continue to consume as much as always. They will buy less stock and bonds. And the economy will NOT suffer. They are the ones who have benefited most from the increased productivity in the last 20 years, so it is only fair to tax them more. They have more and are increasing their share of the national wealth. It is too bad that the ratbag right cannot understand this. It really is rather logical and easy to understand.
What would be fair is to let the Bush tax Cuts expire. Those who are in the lower quintiles would pay what they paid under Clinton. And surely Clinton would not have saddled the poor with a draconian tax burden.
-
How much are these guys responsible for increase in productivity?
They are surely more responsible that the CEO who simply agreed to buy the technology.
-
I have an epiphany!
Eliminating all tax on anyone who is earning more than half a million honest money per anum would cause an huge increase in tax revenue!
In Ireland money you earn from art, singing , painting , writing , dancing-- is tax exempt, result, Ireland attracts and keeps artists who know how to earn with art.
Almost everyone who earns half a million or more (without committing crime) is an employer. If we make these activities tax exempt we will attract and keep a significant fraction of the worlds employers.
These guys will naturally hire people and spend money, this is taxable in its second generation, by allowing the cash to escape the net once, the harvest will be greater as the money multiplies.
It is like catching more fish next season by allowing more breeding fish to survive this season, or perhaps even more it would be like catching more fish over all by exempting successfull breeding fish from the catch.
By the way the waters off of Maine might loose its fishing fleet because tighter restrictions on codfishing are being considered.
Tough on the fishermen and boat owners to have their catch restricted , but even tougher for Cod to become extinct.
Taxation is like that.
-
There is a truly dumb idea. Subsidizing fatcats on the theory that somehow they serve as an inspiration. Louis XIV could not have come up with a sillier idea. It would be impossible to ever get a foolish idea like this through Congress. That is a good thing. Of course the taxes the fatcats did not pay would cause your taxes to rise.
================
Ireland does not exempt businessmen. It exempts artists. Most of those artists are English, and if they live in Ireland, they will enhance the appreciation of the English intellectuals of Ireland and things Irish, at the same time depriving the British of the taxes they otherwise would be paid to the UK government.
So Ireland gets to annoy the English and get a lot of free positive publicity in the English-speaking world as well.
It is pretty close to the deal given to a lot of German intellectuals by the East German government. Bertold Brecht got a deal like that from the East Germans, and left NYC for E. Germany.
-
That you think it dumb reccomends it all the more!
What a great idea it is , it would increase tax recipts tenfold!
I know that you would hate it even if it worked better than I think it would , and you would love reduction of business fortunes even if the net effect was bankruptcy.
I feel this is a safe assumption , getting out of debt is not the point of taxation, the saatisfaction of jelosy is.
Human nature does keep us from doing many things we should , letting people keep what they have earned is not "subsidy" it is fairness.
If you ran fisherys the way you want to run taxation the oceans would be barren.
(The oceans growing barren is a real risk we run , because we do run fisherys the way we run taxation. We ought to preservde the most fertile fish, we ought to allow our most productive persons to produce.)
-
Taxes and fish are entirely different things. Money is not fish.
This is the most idiotic idea I have heard, ever.
-
Taxes and fish are entirely different things. Money is not fish.
it's called an analogy
earth to xo?
-
It is a dumb analogy, a poor analogy.
Raising the taxes on income over a million by 5% and ending the dividend tax break is not the same as unrestricted cod fishing.
-
Nor will it even dent our debt
-
It is what needs to be done, and it clearly will have an impact.
-
A: no it doesnt "need" to be done, regardless of your hatred and jealously of those who apparently have made a better success for themselves and family, than yourself
B: It clearly could.......it could make our economic & unemployment situation far worse
-
It is what needs to be done, and it clearly will have an impact.
Raising taxes 5% on those making over a million will generate about $36 billion. Ending the "tax holiday" will generate about $120 billion. This total is under $160 billion, or about 2 weeks of running the government. Right now, our yearly deficit amounts to about 160 days per year of deficit spending, so this change will only take care of 10% of our problem. It's not nearly enough.
-
It is what needs to be done, and it clearly will have an impact.
Raising taxes 5% on those making over a million will generate about $36 billion. Ending the "tax holiday" will generate about $120 billion. This total is under $160 billion, or about 2 weeks of running the government. Right now, our yearly deficit amounts to about 160 days per year of deficit spending, so this change will only take care of 10% of our problem. It's not nearly enough.
I wonder if any response would include "Well, we 'need' to start somewhere" :-\
-
It is a dumb analogy, a poor analogy.
Raising the taxes on income over a million by 5% and ending the dividend tax break is not the same as unrestricted cod fishing.
What?
I can't see the diffrence.
If you fish too hard you catch less fish.
If you tax too hard , you can't even buy the boat.
-
The amount of fish in the sea declines only where there is overfishing.
The top 1% in this country has increased its percentage of the national wealth by a lot in the last 20 years. Most of the increases in productivity have gone into their ample pockets. They are, in your analogy, teeming with fat, large fish. Raising their taxes by 5% on the bracket over $1 million would simply provide the taxes needed to improve the infrastructure and offset the interest on the national debt. This will benefit nearly all of us.
If these uberrich actually were job creators, they have not done their job by creating more jobs. They have failed to prove that their allegations about how useful they are.
Rather than codfish, think of them as stone crabs, haul them in snap off their large claw and throw them back to grow another.
-
If these uberrich actually were job creators, they have not done their job by creating more jobs.
Due in large, if not mostly, to the policies put into place by this adminstration, not to mention state governments like CA, that basically punish the "uberrich", with a blanket of tax schemes, overt regulations, and uncertainty as to what's around the corner. No sane businessman or woman is going to risk losing so much, under such conditions. One doesn't have to wonder how a language professor and community organizer, simply don't get that
-
Rather than codfish, think of them as stone crabs, haul them in snap off their large claw and throw them back to grow another.
Very well, that claw is snapped off , but you don't have enough claw, do you change policy, do you change policy and start snapping off two claws per crab?
-
We have not snapped off even a portion of one.
Those who have gained the most due to being in this country should pay for the privilege. It is that simple.
-
They ALREADY DO
-
We have not snapped off even a portion of one.
Those who have gained the most due to being in this country should pay for the privilege. It is that simple.
I see you have grasped the concept.
Those crippled crabs can recover , but there must be a limit to how much you cripple it before you make it unproductive.
-
When someone is pulling in a million a year, leaving them with only $700,000 instead of $800,000 is hardly going to cripple them in any way.
That is just dumb.
-
When someone is pulling in a million a year, leaving them with only $700,000 instead of $800,000 is hardly going to cripple them in any way.
That is just dumb.
The question isn't the effect of taking that extra 100k. The question is the fairness of taking that extra 100k.
-
That is just dumb.
what is dumb is you attempting to thieve what's not yours
and give it to even bigger incompetent thieves in Washington.
-
When someone is pulling in a million a year, leaving them with only $700,000 instead of $800,000 is hardly going to cripple them in any way.
Missing completely the point that they ALREADY ARE TAXED MORE
That is just dumb.
You're right...for change. Not only is it completely unfair, but as Ami and others have factually referenced, it doesn't even begin to dent the problem of debt that Obama and his Democrats have buried us under. Pretty damn dumb
-
When someone is pulling in a million a year, leaving them with only $700,000 instead of $800,000 is hardly going to cripple them in any way.
That is just dumb.
That is exactly two employees that this guy will not hire.
Do you expect the government to hire two persons with $100,000?
The Stimulous program didn't produce one job for each million "invested".
Hate Millionaires?
Next time you need a job , call a hippy.
-
If the fatcats were going to be job creators, they would have already created jobs.
They have not, and they will not. Might as well tax the sumbitches.
-
Already demonstrated the FACTOIDS of why they haven't. Start detaxing them, and reduce (NOT remove or abolish) the invasiveness of Government, then watch the jobs start to return again. No punishing necessary, regardless your jealousy