Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Obama deserves a second term


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Qadira

So the support of obama comes from a desire to use punitive taxes on anyone that has more than you think they deserve and borrow this nation into the next greece so you can get all of your favorite free government bennies? Sweet, ruin everything so you get what you want today, the new american way

Taldor

Andrew R wrote:
So the support of obama comes from a desire to use punitive taxes on anyone that has more than you think they deserve and borrow this nation into the next greece so you can get all of your favorite free government bennies? Sweet, ruin everything so you get what you want today, the new american way

Right everyone knows America was founded on the principals of toil and servitude to the rich and powerful. If your father was a king/noble/Bush you were guaranteed as a birthright wealth and power. I can understand why the republican party hates this Obama guy. One of his parents wasn't even white! The nerve of the peasants demanding that the rich pay their fair share for roads and courts and police! It's bad enough that they let them use their roads to work in their factories.

. . . I mean just because they have a greater drain on public resources doesn't mean that they should pay more! Vote Republican, if you're rich you shouldn't pay taxes!

Cheliax

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
Wow, because an 85% tax rate makes investment so much more likley than 91%. Once again, risk versus reward.

Do the math on 85% of 1 billion versus 91% of it. And remember that big business makes much higher profits than that.

I will agree with you that 91% tax rates are not the answer, but disagree that higher tax rates aren't either.

The problem is revenue collected from taxes, we both agree on that. There needs to be more, I think we both agree on that.

Your solution is raise taxes and have government give incentives (loopholes) to re-invest. This is very close to what we do now, and we know this is broken. If the government can give incentives, then I can bribe officals with campaign donations and lobbyists to have them introduce favorable incentives/loopholes for my business.

This is how companies like GE ended up paying no taxes; because Obama created incentives/loopholes for them. Its a political payoff for campaign donations. Both parties do it.

My solution is lower the effective rate but eliminate ALL loopholes, thereby increasing revenue overall. Without the possibility of loopholes, I also severely hamper corruption because there's no reason to bribe lawmakers if they cant give you tax breaks/loop holes/incentives. My plan would lower the rate from 40% to around 25-30%, but because there are no loopholes, I would end up collecting more revenue and I would have struck a real blow against corporate lobbyists.

Government incentives for corporations are just another way to phrase loopholes. In the end, they are the same thing, except with government incentives you have the government picking and choosing winners, which is crony capitalism at best and socialism at worst. The only incentives I would ever support are for starting a small business.

Incentives/Loopholes are the problem with the existing tax code, not the existing rates.


Well, the hyperbole has gone full circle now...

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
Incentives/Loopholes are the problem with the existing tax code, not the existing rates.

I'll agree with that, because incentives need to direct money at things that will increase revenue all around, not corporate profits.

One thing I do want to know is, when you say 'it is socialism at worst', what do you mean by 'socialism'?


Incentives and loopholes a problem in the corporate tax code.

When Republicans talk about loopholes in the personal income tax code, they're usually talking about deductions that many of us use. The Ryan budget cuts capital gains taxes to zero and lowers the top tax rate and promises to be revenue neutral. Given that the rich benefit far more than the rest of us from capital gains, who'll be making that up? The mortgage interest deduction is the only pot of money big enough to make a difference. (Not a bad idea in theory, but it's kicking the housing market while it's down)

Broadening the tax base means the poor and middle pay more.

Cheliax

Guy Humual wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So the support of obama comes from a desire to use punitive taxes on anyone that has more than you think they deserve and borrow this nation into the next greece so you can get all of your favorite free government bennies? Sweet, ruin everything so you get what you want today, the new american way

Right everyone knows America was founded on the principals of toil and servitude to the rich and powerful. If your father was a king/noble/Bush you were guaranteed as a birthright wealth and power. I can understand why the republican party hates this Obama guy. One of his parents wasn't even white! The nerve of the peasants demanding that the rich pay their fair share for roads and courts and police! It's bad enough that they let them use their roads to work in their factories.

. . . I mean just because they have a greater drain on public resources doesn't mean that they should pay more! Vote Republican, if you're rich you shouldn't pay taxes!

The top 5% of earners pay 63% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share considering that 40% of Americans pay no federal income at all. The rich dont mind paying for roads and police, they just dont want to pay for your college, your healthcare, your welfare, your abortions, your sex change, your food stamps, and your housing.

You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans so you could sit in your parent's basement and nerd rage on the internet while collecting unemployment for 2 years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans so you could sit in your parent's basement and nerd rage on the internet while collecting unemployment for 2 years.

Lose the personal attacks. They don't help your case.

Taldor

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


The top 5% of earners pay 63% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share considering that 40% of Americans pay no federal income at all. The rich dont mind paying for roads and police, they just dont want to pay for your college, your healthcare, your welfare, your abortions, your sex change, your food stamps, and your housing.

You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans so you could sit in your parent's basement and nerd rage on the internet while collecting unemployment for 2 years.

Sounds more like 95% of Americans aren't making enough money. Also let's not assume that these folks that are too poor to pay taxes don't pay taxes at all. They don't have a special card that lets them avoid tax on food or gas or anything else.

Taldor

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans . . .

Also I should point out, unlike big business, when the average person has loans they're expected to pay them back. So if I had taken student loans the one paying for it would have been me. That's how loans work. I suppose you think the American businesses don't benefit from having an abundance of university educated people to choose from. I suppose you think that it was better in the old days when only the rich could afford a "proper" education. Sure companies had fewer applicants to choose from but I'm sure it meant that the people they did hire came from the right stock. You wouldn't have to worry about accidentally hiring a visible minority I'm sure.


Andrew R wrote:
So the support of obama comes from a desire to use punitive taxes on anyone that has more than you think they deserve and borrow this nation into the next greece so you can get all of your favorite free government bennies? Sweet, ruin everything so you get what you want today, the new american way

Hmm, let's look at that Greek model, shall we?

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:

Incentives and loopholes a problem in the corporate tax code.

When Republicans talk about loopholes in the personal income tax code, they're usually talking about deductions that many of us use. The Ryan budget cuts capital gains taxes to zero and lowers the top tax rate and promises to be revenue neutral. Given that the rich benefit far more than the rest of us from capital gains, who'll be making that up? The mortgage interest deduction is the only pot of money big enough to make a difference. (Not a bad idea in theory, but it's kicking the housing market while it's down)

Broadening the tax base means the poor and middle pay more.

No it doesn't because the poor dont pay taxes. 40% of the American public pays no federal income tax at all so the poor arent effected by the Ryan plan at all.

Ryan's cutting deductions (loopholes) just like we discussed with corporate income tax rates. By lowering the base rate but eliminating the loopholes, revenues go up because people are actually paying the effective rate and not weaseling their way out of it. He's just simplifying the tax code into two brackets; you either pay flat 10% or 25% based on income with exemptions for the 40% who pay no taxes. Flat rates also reduces the IRS beauracracy, which is some serious government overhead.

The rich dont pay 25% right now after exemptions, so he will increase revenues by using the flat rate. The rich will pay substantially more income tax. The idea that the middle class will be squeezed is just a "boogey man" scenario to scare people into keeping things just the way they are right now; the status quo which is honestly pretty unsustainable. Both parties have suggested ending the Housing deduction, so that's just gonna have to be negotiated on.

Capital gains taxes are a totally different issue than income tax. That's a whole new thread. Way too involved for this kind of forum.

You cant tax your way out of a recession and you can't promote growth by increasing the size of government that already runs a massive debt (1.5 trillion). The idea that more government spending will fix things is like an alcoholic thinking that more vodka shots will eventually cure his already ruined liver.

Cheliax

Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans . . .
Also I should point out, unlike big business, when the average person has loans they're expected to pay them back. So if I had taken student loans the one paying for it would have been me. That's how loans work. I suppose you think the American businesses don't benefit from having an abundance of university educated people to choose from. I suppose you think that it was better in the old days when only the rich could afford a "proper" education. Sure companies had fewer applicants to choose from but I'm sure it meant that the people they did hire came from the right stock. You wouldn't have to worry about accidentally hiring a visible minority I'm sure.

Your posts are devoid of any content or numbers and you keep trying to inject racial issues into the discussion, that means you are frustrated and out of ideas and are now resorting to wild accusation.

Cheliax

Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


The top 5% of earners pay 63% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share considering that 40% of Americans pay no federal income at all. The rich dont mind paying for roads and police, they just dont want to pay for your college, your healthcare, your welfare, your abortions, your sex change, your food stamps, and your housing.

You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans so you could sit in your parent's basement and nerd rage on the internet while collecting unemployment for 2 years.

Sounds more like 95% of Americans aren't making enough money. Also let's not assume that these folks that are too poor to pay taxes don't pay taxes at all. They don't have a special card that lets them avoid tax on food or gas or anything else.

Actually, they can buy food with government isued foodstamps.

And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.

Guy, go get some facts and numbers and stop embarassing yourself.


Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


The top 5% of earners pay 63% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share considering that 40% of Americans pay no federal income at all. The rich dont mind paying for roads and police, they just dont want to pay for your college, your healthcare, your welfare, your abortions, your sex change, your food stamps, and your housing.

You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans so you could sit in your parent's basement and nerd rage on the internet while collecting unemployment for 2 years.

Sounds more like 95% of Americans aren't making enough money. Also let's not assume that these folks that are too poor to pay taxes don't pay taxes at all. They don't have a special card that lets them avoid tax on food or gas or anything else.

Actually, they can buy food with government isued foodstamps.

And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.

Guy, go get some facts and numbers and stop embarassing yourself.

40% of Americans get food stamps? That's news to me.


The Obamanation must stop! There must be change otherwise we will face a 1,000 years of darkness. Obama has the country headed for certain doom, a communist way. It's time to stop this man from leading this country even more off course than before. Vote NOBAMA, it's the right choice.


Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Incentives and loopholes a problem in the corporate tax code.

When Republicans talk about loopholes in the personal income tax code, they're usually talking about deductions that many of us use. The Ryan budget cuts capital gains taxes to zero and lowers the top tax rate and promises to be revenue neutral. Given that the rich benefit far more than the rest of us from capital gains, who'll be making that up? The mortgage interest deduction is the only pot of money big enough to make a difference. (Not a bad idea in theory, but it's kicking the housing market while it's down)

Broadening the tax base means the poor and middle pay more.

No it doesn't because the poor dont pay taxes. 40% of the American public pays no federal income tax at all so the poor arent effected by the Ryan plan at all.

Ryan's cutting deductions (loopholes) just like we discussed with corporate income tax rates. By lowering the base rate but eliminating the loopholes, revenues go up because people are actually paying the effective rate and not weaseling their way out of it. He's just simplifying the tax code into two brackets; you either pay flat 10% or 25% based on income with exemptions for the 40% who pay no taxes. Flat rates also reduces the IRS beauracracy, which is some serious government overhead.

The poor don't pay federal income taxes now. The 40% number is from the height of the recession and counts the Making Work Pay tax credit that was part of the stimulus package. That's expired now.

Do Romney/Ryan intend to keep the deduction and credits that let the ~40% pay no federal income taxes? Or do they intend them to pay the flat 10%? Do we lose the EITC, which is the biggest reason the working poor pay no income tax? The mortgage deduction will hit the middle class hard. (Yes the rich own expensive houses, but tend to owe less on them as a percent of their wealth or income.)

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:

The rich dont pay 25% right now after exemptions, so he will increase revenues by using the flat rate. The rich will pay substantially more income tax. The idea that the middle class will be squeezed is just a "boogey man" scenario to scare people into keeping things just the way they are right now; the status quo which is honestly pretty unsustainable. Both parties have suggested ending the Housing deduction, so that's just gonna have to be negotiated on.

Capital gains taxes are a totally different issue than income tax. That's a whole new thread. Way too involved for this kind of forum.

The capital gains tax is the main reason the really rich pay less. It's why Romney paid ~13% of his income. It's why Warren Buffet paid a lower rate than his secretary. If you're keeping that off the table, then the game is over.

Ending the housing deduction is a good idea. In the long run all it does is inflate house prices, since people figure it in to what they can afford. Doing it now would be disastrous. If we were actually sincere about policy we'd using phasing it out to cool off the next housing bubble when it starts overheating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Michael Jackson was alive when Obama took office, too, and now he's dead! That murdering Muslim commie is outta control! Why does he hate America so much? Is it because of FREEDOM?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Payroll and sales taxes are those not taxes and the poor pay for their income a lot of those.

Cheliax

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


The top 5% of earners pay 63% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share considering that 40% of Americans pay no federal income at all. The rich dont mind paying for roads and police, they just dont want to pay for your college, your healthcare, your welfare, your abortions, your sex change, your food stamps, and your housing.

You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans so you could sit in your parent's basement and nerd rage on the internet while collecting unemployment for 2 years.

Sounds more like 95% of Americans aren't making enough money. Also let's not assume that these folks that are too poor to pay taxes don't pay taxes at all. They don't have a special card that lets them avoid tax on food or gas or anything else.

Actually, they can buy food with government isued foodstamps.

And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.

Guy, go get some facts and numbers and stop embarassing yourself.

40% of Americans get food stamps? That's news to me.

Learn to read. 40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes.

But in answer to your question, 15% of Americans receive food stamps.


Paul DiAndrea wrote:

Learn to read. 40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes.

But in answer to your question, 15% of Americans receive food stamps.

Oh, I can read just fine, thank you.

40% of Americans pay no income taxes, you say.

Guy Humual says that they don't get a special card to skip gas and food taxes.

You say "Actually, they can buy food with government isued foodstamps."

Taldor

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.

Obama controls gas prices?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone knows how much I hate Obama, but:

"then, before Obama could even take office, a funny thing happened: Prices plunged off a cliff, bottoming out at a now-incredible national average of $1.69 a gallon. Something else funny happened: No one celebrated or rushed to take credit.

Why not? Because it wasn't energy policy that caused the reduction. It was a recession, compounded by a financial panic. You want to cut gas prices? There's no medicine like an economic collapse."


I need some clarification about how American government operates. It doesn't seem to me like Obama really ended up having much power in terms of things like economic policy because the republicans controlled the senate (or was it congress?). Am I wrong or isn't determining which party has the majority in congress and senate more important than who is president?

Qadira

Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.
Obama controls gas prices?

Bush was blamed for every penny when he was pres.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.
Obama controls gas prices?

And just for the record, that was a short term drop from a peak of 4.12 that summer. The biggest drop in the last 8 years was that fall.

Gas Price chart

Probably has more to do with the massive drop in demand due to the recession and then demand picking up again as things improved, than with anything else Obama's done.

That short drop makes a real convenient spot to bash Obama from though.

Taldor

Obviously if a Republican were in office gas prices would be lower today. Personally I always thought it was the work of inflation and the free market but now I realize it's Obama's fault. I sure hope you Americans vote Obama out of office so the world fuel prices will drop back to the year 2000 levels. I remember when President Bush was in office and gas prices never went up in those eight years.

Qadira

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So the support of obama comes from a desire to use punitive taxes on anyone that has more than you think they deserve and borrow this nation into the next greece so you can get all of your favorite free government bennies? Sweet, ruin everything so you get what you want today, the new american way

Right everyone knows America was founded on the principals of toil and servitude to the rich and powerful. If your father was a king/noble/Bush you were guaranteed as a birthright wealth and power. I can understand why the republican party hates this Obama guy. One of his parents wasn't even white! The nerve of the peasants demanding that the rich pay their fair share for roads and courts and police! It's bad enough that they let them use their roads to work in their factories.

. . . I mean just because they have a greater drain on public resources doesn't mean that they should pay more! Vote Republican, if you're rich you shouldn't pay taxes!

The top 5% of earners pay 63% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share considering that 40% of Americans pay no federal income at all. The rich dont mind paying for roads and police, they just dont want to pay for your college, your healthcare, your welfare, your abortions, your sex change, your food stamps, and your housing.

You should thank the rich; they probably funded your student loans so you could sit in your parent's basement and nerd rage on the internet while collecting unemployment for 2 years.

But those devil rich should pay it all, they deserve to pay ALL of it that is their fair share don't you know

Taldor

Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.
Obama controls gas prices?
Bush was blamed for every penny when he was pres.

Completely unfairly as well. I didn't like Bush but I didn't think he had any control over gas prices (even though he and Cheney where in the oil business before getting into politics).

Qadira

Guy Humual wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.
Obama controls gas prices?
Bush was blamed for every penny when he was pres.
Completely unfairly as well. I didn't like Bush but I didn't think he had any control over gas prices (even though he and Cheney where in the oil business before getting into politics).

But do you obama defenders jump to the rescue when it is a republican being unfairly attacked?


Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.
Obama controls gas prices?
Bush was blamed for every penny when he was pres.
Completely unfairly as well. I didn't like Bush but I didn't think he had any control over gas prices (even though he and Cheney where in the oil business before getting into politics).
But do you obama defenders jump to the rescue when it is a republican being unfairly attacked?

Hmmm. Well, let's see, Citizen R. You're responding to a post where an Obama defender is defending Bush so, uh...yes?


P.H. Dungeon wrote:

I need some clarification about how American government operates. It doesn't seem to me like Obama really ended up having much power in terms of things like economic policy because the republicans controlled the senate (or was it congress?). Am I wrong or isn't determining which party has the majority in congress and senate more important than who is president?

Well, for the first two years the presidents party controlled BOTH houses of congress, so as far as I'm concerned, yeah, Mr. Obama can be blamed somewhat for our current mess. He was able to ram thru several things, such as stimulus packages (2 I think), and the massive new healthcare fiasco...I mean "bill" (they had to vote on it to see what wad actually in it...).

Taldor

Andrew R wrote:
But those devil rich should pay it all, they deserve to pay ALL of it that is their fair share don't you know

All the taxes is not their fair share. Quite frankly I'm surprised that you'd suggest such a thing Andrew R. I hope there aren't any Republicans reading this . . . you might get kicked out of the party. No, I'd suggest returning to the Clinton era tax rate and then I'd suggest you guys go at the tax code with a fire axe and gut the thing. Get rid of the loop holes. Maybe add a 0.01% tax on funds transferred to off shore accounts just so there's a paper trail. Apparently companies like Halliburton transfer all their money to an account the Caymon island at the end of every business day. That's something I heard reported on the news so it may not be correct but that sort of business is pretty despicable if true.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IIRC, Citizen R. isn't a member of the Republican party, he's an independent misanthrope.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I need some clarification about how American government operates. It doesn't seem to me like Obama really ended up having much power in terms of things like economic policy because the republicans controlled the senate (or was it congress?). Am I wrong or isn't determining which party has the majority in congress and senate more important than who is president?

Both are important. The president has a lot of power over foreign policy and can veto most things Congress passes. They can override with a 2/3 vote of both houses, but that's hard. Traditionally the President sets the agenda and Congress either implements it, blocks it or takes what he's proposed and warps it to their own preference.

Technically the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress for the 2009 and 2010 sessions and the Senate for 2011 and 2012. Practically, the Republicans in the Senate have used every maneuver possible to block and delay, far more than ever before. There have been spectacular filibusters in the past, but they were usually single issue and other work got done in the background. You'll hear that the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in the first session, but see this for more details.

Quote:
Depending upon which metric is used, Democrats had a super majority for roughly six months which includes the seven weeks between Franken’s swearing-in on July 8 to Ted Kennedy’s death on August 25 and the four months and nine days between Paul Kirk’s swearing-in on September 25, 2009 to his replacement by Scott Brown on February 4, 2010.

Not mentioned there is that it also required bringing a dying Senator Byrd to Congress to vote. Or that it relied on "Independent" Senator Lieberman, who'd campaigned for McCain.

It's also worth noting that even a failed filibuster can delay any work for a couple of days. This isn't as important for major legislation, but can be crucial on smaller stuff: If you've got 50 judicial nominations to confirm and one Senator says he'll filibuster and cost you 3 days each, you're going to negotiate with him or just not hold the votes.

American politics is complicated.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Wow, this thread has certainly exploded.

Andrew R wrote:
So the support of obama comes from a desire to use punitive taxes on anyone that has more than you think they deserve and borrow this nation into the next greece so you can get all of your favorite free government bennies?

No, it's not. I wish every question was this easy.

LazarX wrote:
Now that Chuck Norris has said that Obama would bring 1000 years of darkness, I guess that the latter has lost the Warcraft voters.

I've seen a lot of people calling this out as coded racism, but I don't think it is. I figure it's coded red scare, playing in the insane "OBAMA = COMMUNIST" meme. "A thousand years of darkness" was Reagan's catchphrase for what would happen if the Soviets won the cold war.

Marthian wrote:
Also really says something about him too when he gives DVDs about america that don't even play in European VCR players, and an iPod to the queen of England.

The DVDs came with an R1 DVD player (a US DVD player, for those who can't tell the difference between DVD players and Video Cassette Recorders). The iPod was a requested gift, meant as symbolic of the American tech industry, and well-received.

Caineach wrote:
Right, so instead of using ground based missiles, or manned bombers, like we did in the 90s, or surgical strike teams, putting our troops in danger, increasing risk, and decreasing success rate, we use cheaper unmanned drones that have increased accuracy. The policies are nothing new. Just the weapons. I understand the problems with the policies. The only new thing is that we have a new toy though, and the toy shouldn't get the blame for the policies it is used to support.

The "toy" should get the blame for making warfare trivial and bloodless for the US, though. Hell, even look at the words you're using to describe it. Toys don't kill people.

Oops I Crit My Pants wrote:
Its simple. The government has no choice but to cut because it is so overbudget (1.6 trillion this year alone). You are correct when you say that will increase unemployment, but what you fail to consider is that if the government goes bankrupt (which is where its heading), even more people lose their job. So its kind of like cutting off a limb to save the patient. Its ugly and nasty, but necessary to save lives. Do thousands suffer? Yes. Does it save millions of others? Yes.

Except that it's not. People have pointed out to you that the federal government can borrow for less than core inflation, meaning that they pay essentially negative interest. People are okay with this investment right now because there's so much uncertainty for long-term investments, with nobody knowing where the Euro is going to be in 10 years and nobody at all knowing what's really going on in China. For a long-term institutional investor, investing at a slight loss is better than taking the risk of a huge loss. Nobody expects the US to default in the foreseeable future.

Quote:

And almost no one paid the 91% rate you mentioned above. If you ever tried to raise taxes that high on the rich, they'd simply move their business/home overseas to countries with lower tax rates and all the people they employ in the US would be out of work.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

People are going to expand a business and hire new workers if the alternative is only keeping 9 cents of every dollar of profit they keep. High personal taxes cause people to choose reinvestment or long-term investment over short-term investment, if they have the choice. Also, remember that marginal tax rates only apply to the amount of income in that margin; nobody in the history of the US has paid 91% of their income in taxes.

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
The top 5% of earners pay 63% of all federal taxes. Sounds like they are paying their fair share considering that 40% of Americans pay no federal income at all. The rich dont mind paying for roads and police, they just dont want to pay for your college, your healthcare, your welfare, your abortions, your sex change, your food stamps, and your housing.

Then we can hang them from the lampposts. If they aren't willing to allow people to live to consume their goods and perform their labor, then they can consume a bullet.

I don't really mean it to that extreme, but the New Deal had two main motivations: to alleviate the misery of the Great Depression, and stave off the socialist revolution that it was about to brew. The whole point of welfare democracy is that capitalists support a government that makes being a laborer less miserable in return for allowing the exploitation of laborers to continue, and that laborers continue to labor and don't overthrow that government in return for living comfortable lives. The ideas (libertarianism/an-cap, prosperity theology, Calvinism, etc.) that rich people deserve to get richer while the people who are making them rich suffer are diseased.

Oops My Name Is Terrible wrote:
And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.

Here's a handy chart.

Oil prices took a huge jump upward and a massive dive at the beginning of 2009, from a combination of the massive economic crash in 2009 and out-of-control speculation in 2008. then recovered to their post-Iraq War prices until 2011, when OPEC consciously tightened crude prices a bit and Israel-Iran sabre-rattling made people a little more worried about the Middle East.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I need some clarification about how American government operates. It doesn't seem to me like Obama really ended up having much power in terms of things like economic policy because the republicans controlled the senate (or was it congress?). Am I wrong or isn't determining which party has the majority in congress and senate more important than who is president?

Republicans took the House of Representatives in 2010. Other than that, Democrats controlled the House 2008-2010, and still control the Senate.

Taldor

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
And regarding the price of gas, it was $1.84 when Obama took office, it is now at $3.84 a gallon.
Obama controls gas prices?
Bush was blamed for every penny when he was pres.
Completely unfairly as well. I didn't like Bush but I didn't think he had any control over gas prices (even though he and Cheney where in the oil business before getting into politics).
But do you obama defenders jump to the rescue when it is a republican being unfairly attacked?
Hmmm. Well, let's see, Citizen R. You're responding to a post where an Obama defender is defending Bush so, uh...yes?

Whoa whoa whoa, I like Obama, but let's not call me a defender just yet. Personally I'm horrified by all American politics at the moment (not that Canadian politics is getting any better). I didn't like Bush but let's attack him on stuff he did do not things that were out of his control. Same thing for Obama, he took office when the American economy was a smoldering ruin and blaming him for not fixing it in four years is ridiculous. This is something that's going to take a decade or more to fix. If anything you Republicans should be criticizing his failed promises (not that you wanted any of them to succeed).

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torillan wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:

I need some clarification about how American government operates. It doesn't seem to me like Obama really ended up having much power in terms of things like economic policy because the republicans controlled the senate (or was it congress?). Am I wrong or isn't determining which party has the majority in congress and senate more important than who is president?

Well, for the first two years the presidents party controlled BOTH houses of congress, so as far as I'm concerned, yeah, Mr. Obama can be blamed somewhat for our current mess. He was able to ram thru several things, such as stimulus packages (2 I think), and the massive new healthcare fiasco...I mean "bill" (they had to vote on it to see what wad actually in it...).

Now this is maybe something Obama should be criticized for, he had control over the house and senate and he failed to capitalize on it. The problem is he tried to get consensus on things. People in his own party fought him stuff. I admire his ideals but he squandered an incredible opportunity. He couldn't have fixed the economy in those years but he could have passed some of the things he'd campaigned on.


A Man In Black wrote:
Then we can hang them from the lampposts. If they aren't willing to allow people to live to consume their goods and perform their labor, then they can consume a bullet.

Vive le Galt!


Guy Humual wrote:


Whoa whoa whoa, I like Obama, but let's not call me a defender just yet.

My apologies.

Down with Obama!

Vive la Roseanne!

Taldor

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:


Whoa whoa whoa, I like Obama, but let's not call me a defender just yet.

My apologies.

Down with Obama!

Vive la Roseanne!

I do think American needs a new party . . . but Roseanne? I wouldn't mind seeing them end the war on Cannabis but surely there's a more articulate less stigmatized face for such a proposition.


Personally, my position is Voting is for ninnies!, but I'm trying to get into the spirit of the whole election thing.

Taldor

I'd say voting for a party is for ninnies but voting should be the price of complaining about politics. You don't vote you don't get to complain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Try to stop me.


thejeff wrote:

Also, despite the rhetoric, the single biggest reason we've got a huge deficit is that tax revenue is at historically low levels as a percentage of GDP.

The next is the recession itself, which both cuts revenue and boosts demand for services.

Third is the cost of the wars. Higher if you count the ridiculous amount of money we spend on the military as a whole. If we needed to cut spending, that's where we should cut, not social spending. Not teachers and fire fighters and police.

This, by God, this. Although I think we should cut the police too. Not local patrolmen and women, but DEA, TSA, DHS, BATFE, and the FBI could use a good shaking up too. It'll never happen as long as we keep electing democrats and republicans, though. I'd be happy if they offset some of those cuts with some hiring in internal affairs for the gutted departments. Except the TSA and probably the DEA, I'd just rid of them completely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say voting for a party is for ninnies but voting should be the price of complaining about politics. You don't vote you don't get to complain.

Actually non voters are the ones who are able to complain no matter who gets voted in. No matter who wins, they get to say, "Im glad I'm not so idiotic that I voted for _____!"

Taldor

TheWhiteknife wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'd say voting for a party is for ninnies but voting should be the price of complaining about politics. You don't vote you don't get to complain.
Actually non voters are the ones who are able to complain no matter who gets voted in. No matter who wins, they get to say, "Im glad I'm not so idiotic that I voted for _____!"

Most of the actual voters get to say that as well :P Blame the first past the post system of modern elections.

It's rare for someone in Canada for example to get more then 50% of the popular vote. In fact I've heard it said that it's possible for a president to have 22% of the popular vote and still have enough electoral collage votes to win the election.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

TheWhiteknife wrote:
This, by God, this. Although I think we should cut the police too. Not local patrolmen and women, but DEA, TSA, DHS, BATFE, and the FBI could use a good shaking up too. It'll never happen as long as we keep electing democrats and republicans, though. I'd be happy if they offset some of those cuts with some hiring in internal affairs for the gutted departments. Except the TSA and probably the DEA, I'd just rid of them completely.

Speaking of the TSA.

Reversing Bush's stance against allowing them to organize and bargain collectively is one of Obama's (few and small) labor accomplishments. They later joined the AFGE (apologies for linking the Daily Caller).

101 to 150 of 810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama deserves a second term All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.