View Full Version : Obama in Minneapolis shows leadership ability
Show Me the Wire
09-12-2009, 07:59 PM
cheerleading that is. After 8 months he continually demonstrates his leadership ability is limited to cheerleading. I acknowledge he is very articulate in leading chants.
His new monicker should be cheerleader-in-chief. The nation must be estatic to have the rah-rah rutabaga as its cheerleader-in-chief.
His new monicker should be cheerleader-in-chief. The nation must be estatic to have the rah-rah rutabaga as its cheerleader-in-chief.
Rah rah ree, send your cash to me!
And the first mag for the Obama Library.....
cj's dad
09-13-2009, 12:06 AM
cheerleading that is. After 8 months he continually demonstrates his leadership ability is limited to cheerleading. I acknowledge he is very articulate in leading chants.
His new monicker should be cheerleader-in-chief. The nation must be estatic to have the rah-rah rutabaga as its cheerleader-in-chief.
He is so far out of his league that really, what else can he do- his entire administration has been smoke and mirrors.
The most overmatched CIC in my lifetime.
Rah rah ree, send your cash to me!
Tom please keep for sexual aids to yourself.:lol:
He is so far out of his league that really, what else can he do- his entire administration has been smoke and mirrors.
The most overmatched CIC in my lifetime.
A nine month old kid posting on ot.....PA alert the media you've got a scoop:lol:
No, Hank, you can post here.
cj's dad
09-13-2009, 02:59 AM
A nine month old kid posting on ot.....PA alert the media you've got a scoop:lol:
Fairly typical of the left - call names !!
illinoisbred
09-13-2009, 12:19 PM
cheerleading that is. After 8 months he continually demonstrates his leadership ability is limited to cheerleading. I acknowledge he is very articulate in leading chants.
His new monicker should be cheerleader-in-chief. The nation must be estatic to have the rah-rah rutabaga as its cheerleader-in-chief.
Cheerleader is a very apt description.He's certainly not a player.I remember when he declared his candidiacy;the chicago media couldn't find 1 bill he ever voted on in the state or in the U.S. Senate.
Greyfox
09-13-2009, 03:20 PM
He can't stop campaigning. There's a huge narcissistic injury driving him.
JustRalph
09-13-2009, 04:47 PM
he is what he proposed to be.......nothing more.....nothing less
This is a guy who has little experience and has lived on the government his entire life...........
He signaled he would be a socialist and here we are........
13% of the population gave him the presidency by voting 99% as a block for him. This debacle lays at the feet of White Liberals ...the black community and Conservatives that Stayed home............ that is a powerful contingent
very tough to overcome. This guy will end up setting blacks back 20 yrs.........
cj's dad
09-13-2009, 06:34 PM
he is what he proposed to be.......nothing more.....nothing less
This is a guy who has little experience and has lived on the government his entire life...........
He signaled he would be a socialist and here we are........
13% of the population gave him the presidency by voting 99% as a block for him. This debacle lays at the feet of White Liberals ...the black community and Conservatives that Stayed home............ that is a powerful contingent
very tough to overcome. This guy will end up setting blacks back 20 yrs.........
Well said JR - you are however leaving out the fact that the Repubs nominated a 72 (?) year old man who no connect with the under 40 crowd and no real appeal to speak of.
One more point; his connection with Acorn, the czar appointments, his narcissism, and general lack of leadership has already set AA's back 20 years and the clock is ticking each and every time he opens his mouth.
jognlope
09-13-2009, 06:37 PM
Well to up your belief there should be no socialism, I assume you will be refusing your Medicare coverage and sending back your social security?
NJ Stinks
09-13-2009, 06:44 PM
[QUOTE=JustRalphThis guy will end up setting blacks back 20 yrs.........[/QUOTE]
Nastradamus you ain't. But keep saying it, Ralph. I hear that can make it true. :rolleyes:
boxcar
09-13-2009, 06:48 PM
Well to up your belief there should be no socialism, I assume you will be refusing your Medicare coverage and sending back your social security?
So your "brilliant" rationale is that because we have adopted socialism, through some socialistic programs, to some degree over the last several decades, now is the time to jump right into the deep end of the pool and become an all-out socialist country? It's time for Americans to surrender even more of our individual liberties?
Boxcar
P.S. Your rather ill-conceived question has been brought up previously and answered well by Lefty, I believe. Pay attention. You're behind the curve as it is.
Well to up your belief there should be no socialism, I assume you will be refusing your Medicare coverage and sending back your social security?
Since I paid for both and will never get out what I put in, of course I will take them. If is not socialism to those who PAY for it. Your point makes no sense.
Jog, if you are so worried about everyone else, feel free to take care of them yourself, but keep your sticky fingers out of my wallet, as I do not need YOU telling me what to do with my money. Your audacity is disgusting!
Warren Henry
09-13-2009, 08:59 PM
Well to up your belief there should be no socialism, I assume you will be refusing your Medicare coverage and sending back your social security?
I would give up my Social Security, Medicare, agricultural payments (none of which make ANY sense), etc if this country could magically revert back to minimal government, people taking responsibility for themselves, freedom to make as much money as I like without being penalized for daring to succeed, etc. But it likely can't happen because too many of you are already too dependant on the state and are afraid to be on your own.
Warren Henry
09-13-2009, 09:02 PM
Well to up your belief there should be no socialism, I assume you will be refusing your Medicare coverage and sending back your social security?
By making this statement, I see that you DO AGREE that these programs are socialism. Congratulations for at least being able to see/admit the truth. Now if we could just get you to see that it is BAD for you and your country to go any farther down this road.
NJ Stinks
09-13-2009, 09:06 PM
I would give up my Social Security, Medicare, agricultural payments (none of which make ANY sense), etc if this country could magically revert back to minimal government, people taking responsibility for themselves, freedom to make as much money as I like without being penalized for daring to succeed, etc. But it likely can't happen because too many of you are already too dependant on the state and are afraid to be on your own.
OK. I'll bite. Explain why do you think people are being penalized for succeeding in making money.
A few names would be nice too since we all must know some of these unfortunate people. Besides Madoff, of course!
illinoisbred
09-13-2009, 09:09 PM
I would give up my Social Security, Medicare, agricultural payments (none of which make ANY sense), etc if this country could magically revert back to minimal government, people taking responsibility for themselves, freedom to make as much money as I like without being penalized for daring to succeed, etc. But it likely can't happen because too many of you are already too dependant on the state and are afraid to be on your own.
Ditto!Who best to provide for our own future but ourselves.Let us keep more of our money and we all could do better financial planning than our government.It should not be the governments job to penalize most of us just to save the helpless.Whatever happened to "'rugged individualism"? That spirit made this country great and we seriously need to recapture it.
OK. I'll bite. Explain why do you think people are being penalized for succeeding in making money.
A few names would be nice too since we all must know some of these unfortunate people. Besides Madoff, of course!
What planet are you on?
All you hear is how the solution for everything is tax the rich.
When I earn money and some it is taken away and given to those who don't, that is being penalized.
Warren Henry
09-13-2009, 09:56 PM
OK. I'll bite. Explain why do you think people are being penalized for succeeding in making money.
A few names would be nice too since we all must know some of these unfortunate people. Besides Madoff, of course!
Ever hear of the graduated income tax? If citizen A goes out and busts his butt and makes twice as much as citizen B who just puts in as little time as possible to get a check, citizen A will pay a much higher percentage of his earnings in taxes than citizen B.
The left is always talking about FAIR. There is nothing fair about the current tax code. Actually, the current tax code is more about social engineering, controlling power, and building government than it is about taking care of the legitimate functions of a limited government.
The whole philisophy of TAX THE RICH that the Left sells is penalizing people who are trying to succeed.
Estate taxes are extremely unfair to the people who have worked hard and have succeeded. If I spent my whole life building up a business, why shouldn't my family be able to enjoy the fruits of my labor? Why is it OK to take away a major portion of my estate? I got taxed every step of the way in building that business, taking away a big percentage of what is left when I die is penalizing me for succeeding.
How about any Chrysler dealer who had his business stolen from him with no compensation given and no notice. Of course, if you were in tight with the right politician, you were spared.
The whole class envy thing that the left promotes. The whole tax the rich more and more to pay for the poor.
I have no problem with the government establishing a saftey net to take care of the folks who truly can not take care of themselves. But I don't believe that they have any RIGHT to live as well as I do. I also do not believe that there should be more incentive not to work than there is to work for the people at the bottom of the social scale. If we take away their subsistence if they show ambition and go out and try to start up the ladder, then they too are being penalized for trying to succeed.
NJ Stinks
09-15-2009, 02:32 AM
Appreciate the response, Warren. Sorry it took me so long to respond.
First, you can't get blood out of rock. This is just as true today as it was in 1913 when Congress enacted the 16th Amendment and a graduated income tax. The fact is that 80% of this country are not wealthy enough to pay significant income tax. Certainly, those 80% cannot afford to fund our military properly let alone anything else. Because of this fact, the country has no choice but to get the bulk of our government's revenue from people who actually have most of the country's wealth. That may sound like an oversimplication but it's also the truth. Sometimes I wonder if people understand how much wealth is concentrated here. It's the logical outcome in a capitalistic society. Also, the tax code is predomitantly filled with loopholes that benefit those with enough clout to bring about these tax laws/loopholes. I assure you that's not the little guy.
As for estate taxes, if you can find one farmer who lost his farm, I want to see the link. Here's the latest on estate tax law from the Tax Foundation, dated 12-31-2008:
__________________________________________________ _
Beginning tomorrow (2009), the federal estate tax will have a rate of 45 percent combined with a generous exemption level of $3.5 million. That's until Dec. 31, 2009.
__________________________________________________ ___
The first $3.5M is exempt from federal estate tax. Your idea of taking away "a major portion" of someone's estate and mine are not the same. There are also special provisions that benefit farmers and small businesses. And it may interest you to know that less than one percent of all filers are liable for estate taxes. (It was 3/10's of 1% in 1987 but I couldn't find an exact figure for the present.)
As for those Chrysler dealers, the ones I saw on TV said they were going switch to another auto maker. I don't know how many dealers actually lost their dealerships forever, if any. Maybe Wisconsin knows.
Finally, I believe this whole thing about people living great on government handouts is a myth perpetuated by the right to justify crying about paying taxes. Let's put it this way. I never met one person without a real job with a standard of living as good as my standard of living. I've heard about it - I'm sure some people inherited enough money so they don't have to work - but we're talking about people living on government handouts. I have never seen it. How can that be since I'm going on 60 and it is said with such conviction by right wingers?:confused:
Anyway, it's not a "class envy thing" that got Congress to pass a graduated income tax almost 100 years ago or the estate tax in 1916. It was necessity.
newtothegame
09-15-2009, 05:27 AM
Appreciate the response, Warren. Sorry it took me so long to respond.
First, you can't get blood out of rock. This is just as true today as it was in 1913 when Congress enacted the 16th Amendment and a graduated income tax. The fact is that 80% of this country are not wealthy enough to pay significant income tax. Certainly, those 80% cannot afford to fund our military properly let alone anything else. Because of this fact, the country has no choice but to get the bulk of our government's revenue from people who actually have most of the country's wealth. That may sound like an oversimplication but it's also the truth. Sometimes I wonder if people understand how much wealth is concentrated here. It's the logical outcome in a capitalistic society. Also, the tax code is predomitantly filled with loopholes that benefit those with enough clout to bring about these tax laws/loopholes. I assure you that's not the little guy.
As for estate taxes, if you can find one farmer who lost his farm, I want to see the link. Here's the latest on estate tax law from the Tax Foundation, dated 12-31-2008:
__________________________________________________ _
Beginning tomorrow (2009), the federal estate tax will have a rate of 45 percent combined with a generous exemption level of $3.5 million. That's until Dec. 31, 2009.
__________________________________________________ ___
The first $3.5M is exempt from federal estate tax. Your idea of taking away "a major portion" of someone's estate and mine are not the same. There are also special provisions that benefit farmers and small businesses. And it may interest you to know that less than one percent of all filers are liable for estate taxes. (It was 3/10's of 1% in 1987 but I couldn't find an exact figure for the present.)
As for those Chrysler dealers, the ones I saw on TV said they were going switch to another auto maker. I don't know how many dealers actually lost their dealerships forever, if any. Maybe Wisconsin knows.
Finally, I believe this whole thing about people living great on government handouts is a myth perpetuated by the right to justify crying about paying taxes. Let's put it this way. I never met one person without a real job with a standard of living as good as my standard of living. I've heard about it - I'm sure some people inherited enough money so they don't have to work - but we're talking about people living on government handouts. I have never seen it. How can that be since I'm going on 60 and it is said with such conviction by right wingers?:confused:
Anyway, it's not a "class envy thing" that got Congress to pass a graduated income tax almost 100 years ago or the estate tax in 1916. It was necessity.
NJ, lets say for a minute your right. And, I would say your right about a small percentage having most of the wealth. But, in your own words, how can you say its not a penalty, when the other side of you say's that the much larger percentage can't afford to pay for it? SOMEONE has to pay it. Therefore, the small percentage pays the large portion. Now I do agree that someone does have to pay for it, but what is wrong with something along the lines of a fair tax? (See, I am a conservative and I don't mind paying a bit more as long as EVERYONE does). Let me tell you why almost all of congress is against a fair tax...it would ELIMINATE their power. Lets rewrite the tax code!
As to the people you referred to about living on government handouts, well lets just say you have been lucky to never have met one. It is a way of live for a large population. I am sure you could easily find this if you chose too. I can tell you that TEN percent of the U.S population recieves food stamps. Thats not any other government programs...JUST FOOD STAMPS.
If people hate government assistance as you suggest, then why is there so much fraud found in it? Wny when something as simple as "drug testing" totally Shot down by dems when a republican mentions testing recipients?
How is it that states are funded by the government in some cases by how many people they have on assistance programs? States are rewarded for having more people on assistance (dependent on government).
Are there some people who need a "hand up"? And for the record, I have no problem giving or helping those people. But, I have a real problem giving hand OUTS. There is no incentive for people to get off of assistance.
If there was, TEN percent of the public wouldnt be on it!
Quagmire
09-15-2009, 07:11 AM
http://mindprod.com/image/people/bushhorn.jpg
http://mindprod.com/image/people/bushhorn.jpg
Bong?
Warren Henry
09-15-2009, 11:10 AM
Appreciate the response, Warren. Sorry it took me so long to respond.
First, you can't get blood out of rock. This is just as true today as it was in 1913 when Congress enacted the 16th Amendment and a graduated income tax. The fact is that 80% of this country are not wealthy enough to pay significant income tax. Certainly, those 80% cannot afford to fund our military properly let alone anything else. Because of this fact, the country has no choice but to get the bulk of our government's revenue from people who actually have most of the country's wealth. That may sound like an oversimplication but it's also the truth. Sometimes I wonder if people understand how much wealth is concentrated here. It's the logical outcome in a capitalistic society. Also, the tax code is predomitantly filled with loopholes that benefit those with enough clout to bring about these tax laws/loopholes. I assure you that's not the little guy.
As for estate taxes, if you can find one farmer who lost his farm, I want to see the link. Here's the latest on estate tax law from the Tax Foundation, dated 12-31-2008:
__________________________________________________ _
Beginning tomorrow (2009), the federal estate tax will have a rate of 45 percent combined with a generous exemption level of $3.5 million. That's until Dec. 31, 2009.
__________________________________________________ ___
The first $3.5M is exempt from federal estate tax. Your idea of taking away "a major portion" of someone's estate and mine are not the same. There are also special provisions that benefit farmers and small businesses. And it may interest you to know that less than one percent of all filers are liable for estate taxes. (It was 3/10's of 1% in 1987 but I couldn't find an exact figure for the present.)
As for those Chrysler dealers, the ones I saw on TV said they were going switch to another auto maker. I don't know how many dealers actually lost their dealerships forever, if any. Maybe Wisconsin knows.
Finally, I believe this whole thing about people living great on government handouts is a myth perpetuated by the right to justify crying about paying taxes. Let's put it this way. I never met one person without a real job with a standard of living as good as my standard of living. I've heard about it - I'm sure some people inherited enough money so they don't have to work - but we're talking about people living on government handouts. I have never seen it. How can that be since I'm going on 60 and it is said with such conviction by right wingers?:confused:
Anyway, it's not a "class envy thing" that got Congress to pass a graduated income tax almost 100 years ago or the estate tax in 1916. It was necessity.
Where you are wrong about the "class envy thing" is that the great orators in your party use it almost as much as race as a way to manipulate their core. The way it is done is with dripping disdain for the "wealthy who don't want to contribute their fair share ." The truth of the matter is that the folks in the middle are the ones who pay most of the bills. The poor can't pay and there aren't enough super rich to fund everything (even without the loopholes), so the real carriers of the load are the folks in the middle.
The problem I have is that there is a continued push from the politicians to elevate the standard of living of the non-contributors. If you continue to try to raise the standard of living of the bottom at the expense of the middle you will ultimately get to the point where the guy in the middle will give up.
The only reason that the politicians won't change the system to give incentive to the non-producers to join the producers is that they are easier to control when they are totally dependent.
But, as other countries have found out over the long course of history, socialism doesn't work very well in improving the general condition of the population at large.
NJ Stinks
09-15-2009, 10:25 PM
Newtothegame and Warren, I will not deny that you guys raise good points. I just find it hard to understand how a baseball player making $4M a year is being penalized when he is fined $50,000 for bumping an umpire or whatever. My idea of a penalty is getting a $175 speeding ticket when you make $500 a week. But in the strictest definition of the word, a person making $1M a year is being penalized when his income tax rate increases from 35% (under Bush) to 39.6% as Obama proposes.
And I may have blinders on about people with food stamps. I don't get upset if they buy booze or whatever. I would too if I was on food stamps. But I understand that most people are angered more by abuses in social programs than I am. Generally, I just feel bad for these people. Guess that why I'm a liberal.
But I will agree that I'm willing to pay more in taxes than I do now, Newtothegame. The amount I pay to the State of NJ in state income tax is peanuts, for example. So is the amount I pay for Medicare. If my federal income taxes were increased another 5% or so I don't see how it would affect anything in my life.
Warren, the top federal income tax rate was 50% in the 1970's. Now it is 35%. We can't afford it. The top earners are no longer paying their fair share and it shows in our deficits. The folks in the middle are carrying more of the burden today than they were in the 1970's for sure. The more the top income tax rates were dropped, the more the middle class suffered and suffers. We feel it in higher real estate taxes the most because less federal tax revenue - that was formerly re-distributed to the state governments - is available for re-distribution. So the state governments can no longer fund certain things on the local level because they are getting less back from the federal government. Our local governments have no choice but to raise our real estate taxes because we still have the same expenses on the local level that we had in the 1970's. I could go on but you get my point even if you may disagree with it.
Your point about controlling the lowest earners or non-earners with handouts is true IMO. Certainly crime is reduced if people don't have to rob to live. It's a tough problem. Do you want more street people? Or do you hope they get up and find a job if you don't help them? Maybe tough love works best. I don't know the answer.
fast4522
09-15-2009, 10:34 PM
What a bad joke we have become.
This BOZO is the fool, not us.
WE shall overcome!
cj's dad
09-16-2009, 03:15 AM
This BOZO is the fool, not us.
WE shall overcome!
Now this jackass BOzo is doing TV commercials with George Lopez promoting TBS.
Does he have ANY clue as to the meaning of PRESIDENTIAL ???
he understands it very well it seems.
If another pug gets in he/she will be more like bama than you hoped for.
fast4522
09-16-2009, 03:25 PM
The very very sad truth is that it is dam the torpedoes and they have to push what ever they can threw during the first administration knowing full well that there will be damage and casualty's because of it. It is sad that the Bilderberg Group is in complete control of the left wing of our government.
Warren Henry
09-16-2009, 03:54 PM
The very very sad truth is that it is dam the torpedoes and they have to push what ever they can threw during the first administration knowing full well that there will be damage and casualty's because of it. It is sad that the Bilderberg Group is in complete control of the left wing of our government.
I don't think that level of control is limited to the left side. I think most of the right leadership is solidly entrenched with or controlled by the same people.
In our most recent past, the folks who have campaigned from the right and won, governed more left than right.
fast4522
09-17-2009, 07:30 PM
I don't think that level of control is limited to the left side. I think most of the right leadership is solidly entrenched with or controlled by the same people.
In our most recent past, the folks who have campaigned from the right and won, governed more left than right.
__________________
Warren
Warren,
I tend to disagree with you on many points, granted most folks wearing the $400 shoes are real happy to take the money no matter where it comes from because they are all whores in that respect. The fact is if the right or conservatives when in power have held the line and did what the core of the party wanted more than what Europe wanted. In a very real way the right wing is more to the center than the right, this administration and its left wing of the congress have no limit how FFL it is willing to go. Many who never had a pot to piss in think this is just, but really to who?
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.