|
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 21, 2008 19:50:51 GMT -6
Okay, all you Obama supporters.
He promised change where is it?
Gee his cabinet is composted of Washington insiders and Clinton people.
This is just like the Clinton regime who got away with murder, and adultery in the office.
Change?
Don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wolf on Nov 21, 2008 20:11:21 GMT -6
lol@ clinton ppl. how bout putting hillary clinton herself in office.
change...aint happening!
|
|
|
Post by Sylver Morrigan on Nov 21, 2008 20:49:06 GMT -6
First of all, Obama isn't president yet. We're still under the Bush 'doctrine' at this point in time.
And, yes, Obama has chosen some of his cabinet members already, and some of them are former Clinton cabinet members. And supposedly he's going to announce Hilary Clinton as his Secretary of State after Thanksgiving.
Let's remember that our country was in a TOTALLY different place the last time these people were in the White House. As far as the Clinton people getting away with 'murder' and 'adultery', well.
I don't want to totally offend people with what I'm thinking about that. But the adultery thing? So he got some on the side. He shouldn't have lied about it, but whatever. At least we weren't one of the most hated countries in the world then. At least we had a strong economy.
Oh, and the change? We won't see the CHANGE from this ridiculous regime that Bush has in place until next January. So you'll have to keep waiting.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Dangerously on Nov 22, 2008 14:09:31 GMT -6
Sure, Clinton fucked a rather rotund female.
So did I.
And look at how badass I am.
FIND A BETTER PRESIDENT SINCE KENNEDY THAN BILL CLINTON?
...oh wait.
You can't.
This is America.
Land of the FREE.
Not the fucking people's REPUBLIC of Iraq.
YES WE CAN!
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wolf on Nov 23, 2008 11:37:47 GMT -6
Obama may delay tax-cut rollback for wealthy WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. "Those considerations will be made," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
Bill Daley, an adviser to Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the 2010 scenario "looks more likely than not."
President George W. Bush's tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. After that they would revert to 2001 levels, when the top individual tax rate was 39.6 percent.
Obama has called for reducing taxes for the middle class, but requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay more than the current top rate of 35 percent.
His aides' comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.
"The main thing right now is to get this economic recovery package on the road, to get money in the pockets of the middle class, to get these projects going, to get America working again, and that's where we're going to be focused in January," Axelrod said.
Obama said on Saturday he was crafting an aggressive two-year stimulus plan to revive the economy, aiming to save 2.5 million jobs by January 2011 through projects including transportation infrastructure, school modernization and alternative energy.
Obama called in October for a $175 billion stimulus measure, but he suggested he was ready to push for a much larger package.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who is part of the majority leadership team in the Senate, told ABC's "This Week" that an economic recovery package between $500 billion and $700 billion is needed and could be ready by the time Obama takes office on January 20.
"I think it has to be deep. In my view it has to be between five and seven hundred billion dollars," Schumer said.
(Additional reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
Not even in office yet, and already breaking his word about things he said in his campaign. CHANGE!
|
|
|
Post by Calvin Constantine on Nov 23, 2008 12:02:08 GMT -6
The economic situation has become so dire that Obama recognizes that rolling back the Bush tax cut would be destructive.
Many economists now fear that a lack of demand will drive prices downward, leading to deflation. Deflation discourages consumption because the value of money is growing, making it far more equitable to save. This can bring economic growth to a standstill. Raising taxes on the wealthiest would only give them more incentive to save the money that they are allowed to keep.
GDP=Consumption+Government Spending+Investment+(Exports-Imports)
Right now, consumption makes up about 70 percent of GDP, so it's plain to see how higher taxes could potentially worsen the situation.
The Great Depression was a deflationary recession. FDR's response was to keep prices artifically high by paying farmers to leave their fields fallow and to slaughter livestock, creating artificial scarcity. He also froze wages to keep struggling companies from slashing payroll. These policies kept unemployment very high during the Depression, since the scarcity policies discourage full employment and the wage policies create a disincentive for hiring. This was inane; I really don't think FDR understood economics at all.
If the government is going to spend during a recession, as Obama plans to do, it has three options:
1. Tax the people now. 2. Tax the people later. 3. Print money.
Number one is a poor option due to the reasons outlined above. Number three is dangerous, because the quantity of money that would be needed would not only derail deflation, but also cause inflation (worthless money). Number two is the best, because the government banks on the assumption that things will get better, thus taxation down the line will generate more revenue.
By proposing new spending and delaying tax increases until 2011, Obama is going for number two.
I would imagine that if a Democrat was looking for qualified people to serve in his administration, he would almost have to appoint folks from the previous Democratic administration. Who were you expecting? Bill Ayers?
Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious at this point that Obama won't be given a chance by some people.
|
|
|
Post by Sylver Morrigan on Nov 24, 2008 16:24:48 GMT -6
I was going to write something, but Dan always says it much more eloquently than I ever could. Is Obama 'going back' on a campaign promise? Technically, sure he is. But are we in the same place we were when he made that promise? Hell no. He's rolling with the punches, and that's what we need him to do. Did you know that Citigroup is getting help from the feds? Citigroup. Their stock was under $2 a share at one point.
Do you realize that in October of 2007, the Dow Jones closed at 14164. Last week, in November 2008, it closed at 7552. In 13 months, it lost over 46%. In the last two sessions, it's gained back 891 points. 11%. It lost 892 points in the two sessions prior to those two. Do you see a pattern? It's called volitility. This is one of the most volitile times for the stock market in history.
To try and get the economy back on track, Obama has to figure in many things, including the markets and how they react. Choosing to 'go back on his promise' would have been a difficult decision to get to, but this affects everyone, and he has to do what is right by the country as a whole, not what is right for one class of citizen.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wolf on Nov 25, 2008 0:44:11 GMT -6
then he should of ran on that ticket, not outright lie and mislead. But then, thats the kind of "change" some folk aplaud, the rich getting richer and the poor get poorer. But hey, we can always celebrate " the movement", and " change", and ignore lies and misleading campaign promises, right? i think its time to stop celebrating "what Barack Obama winning means for America" and start paying attention to Barack Obama's promises of changes and holding true to his word on what got him somehow elected. now that hes prez- elect, hes backing off, and the rich have no worries. enjoy the next four years of change.
|
|
|
Post by Sylver Morrigan on Nov 25, 2008 14:21:16 GMT -6
Are you actually reading what I wrote? The economy is in a different place than it was on Election Day, on the date of each debate, and on the days when Obama made these 'promises'. I don't feel that anything he said re: the economy was an outright lie or misleading; he said what he felt was true at the time he said it - the economy is terribly volatile right now, and he has to roll with the punches to get the right shit done.
Don't just sit there and badmouth Obama or his supporters, talking about 'outright lies', at least give facts to back that up. Prove to me that something he changed his stance on is NOT directly related to the changing state of the economy. And as for the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer.... did you even look at what McCain was going to do for the rich? How much more the lower and middle classes would be paying in taxes under McCain? I mean, even their healthcare ideas: McCain was going to TAX what you pay for medical insurance. That has NEVER been done. Ever. Ever ever. I would think everyone knows how that works, but since you're all talking the way you are, I'm going to assume you don't know how that would impact you.
Today, your paycheck is for $400. And your medical benefits cost you $50 a week. So, the medical benefits payment is taken out pre-tax... so you are taxed on $350 of your paycheck. Under McCain, you would have been taxed on the WHOLE $400 of your paycheck, THEN they'd take your $50 for medical benefits. Which leaves more money in your pocket?
Right there. That's McCain trying to bend the non-rich over the proverbial sink and fucking us in the proverbial ass.
|
|
|
Post by LB! on Nov 25, 2008 18:32:45 GMT -6
I'm not happy about him delaying the return to Clinton-level taxes for the upper class but I do think its adorable to see the conservative outrage at Obama delaying what they called Socialism a month ago.
Lol at the Clinton murder charge, too. Didn't know anyone still bought that.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 25, 2008 19:19:15 GMT -6
Acutlaly I hope he does lower taxes, but he won't.
He can't.
I actually find it funny how he promised change and not the norm.
1st he picks Joe Biden. No real change there, hes the democrat attack dog.
now his cabinet appointments seem to be a retread of the same old same old.
I am only questioning where his change is.
Bush is a lame duck aside from pardons and sniping at Congress he really cant do anything. True Obama isn't preseidnet but he isn't really setting a "change" atmosphere. It's more same ole same ole.
I'm outraged over his "delaying of Socialism."
I just find it funny that he promised change etc etc. But yet his cabinet picks are all Washington insiders.
And Morrigan as far as Clinton's adultery.
Yes he "got some on the side." However aren't we supposed to hold the President to a higher ethical standard? He admitted it and just got blasted in the press. That is a commentary that we are so accpeting of adulterous lying behavior then when the highest office in the land does it we just say oh well life goes on.
Sad really.
But I'd best quell my dissent because after all based on statemnt made in July Obama wants his own civilian security force, with powers equal to the police.
Gee that sounds like his own private security force.
You know a guy with a mustache tried that over 50 years aga.
Didn't work out to well.
|
|
|
Post by Calvin Constantine on Nov 25, 2008 21:35:49 GMT -6
Even if we accept the premise that all of his choices were "Washington insiders"...
Would you have preferred unqualified people?
George W. Bush ran as an "outsider", then appointed retreads from the Ford, Reagan, and Bush administrations.
If you take issue with his choices, who would you rather have? Who would you have liked to see as Secretary of the Treasury? Secretary of Commerce? Attorney General?
I offered an explanation of why Obama is considering delaying tax hikes on the wealthy. Do you take issue with my reasoning? Can you offer an argument detailing why raising taxes on wealthy people would benefit the country as a whole?
I do anticipate a good deal of change. We've spent the last eight years with a huge millstone around our necks. This particular millstone stole an election, destroying the confidence of the American people in our electoral process. This millstone exploited the harrowing tragedy of 9/11 for political gain, taking advantage of the confusion in the following weeks to push though despicable environmental deregulation. This millstone launched an illegal war based around manufactured intelligence. This millstone sat on his hands rather than proactively respond to the Katrina disaster. This millstone soiled the name of our country by pushing for torturing prisoners of war. This millstone has raped the Constitution by launching scores of illegal wiretaps.
So, yes, I do believe change is coming.
|
|
George Washington Knipe
Guest
|
Post by George Washington Knipe on Nov 25, 2008 22:51:30 GMT -6
WERE THE PREZ
|
|
|
Post by LB! on Nov 26, 2008 2:15:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Q Public on Nov 26, 2008 5:41:36 GMT -6
It's funny how in the original context it didn't sound like that. He didn't really elborate at his rally.
Howeer the link does bring up an interesting point. Related to his proposal. Obama wants to mandate community service.
Requring mandatory community service??
That takes away some our individual liberties.
The governemnet has NO RIGHT to mandate community service. It should be up the individual to choose whether or not to partipcate in community service.
|
|