According to Obama NOT Taking my Money is "Spending"...

[theDoctorisIn]

BREAKING NEWS!


Politician uses RHETORIC.

Movie at eleven.

 

[The Rabbi]

BREAKING NEWS!


Politician uses RHETORIC.

Movie at eleven.

So, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" was merely rhetoric? If so, what other statements Obama made are "merely rhetoric" and shouldn't be taken seriously? What statements should we take seriously from Obama or other Democratic candidates?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

BREAKING NEWS!


Politician uses RHETORIC.

Movie at eleven.

So, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" was merely rhetoric? If so, what other statements Obama made are "merely rhetoric" and shouldn't be taken seriously? What statements should we take seriously from Obama or other Democratic candidates?

I think you might want to look up what the word "rhetoric" means. You seem to be a bit confused.

But yes, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" is rhetoric.

 

[The Rabbi]

BREAKING NEWS!


Politician uses RHETORIC.

Movie at eleven.

So, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" was merely rhetoric? If so, what other statements Obama made are "merely rhetoric" and shouldn't be taken seriously? What statements should we take seriously from Obama or other Democratic candidates?

I think you might want to look up what the word "rhetoric" means. You seem to be a bit confused.

But yes, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" is rhetoric.

I know what the term "rhetoric" means. Probably better than you do.
So please answer the other questions.

 

[Greenbeard]

"The same people who didn't have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn't offer relief to middle-class Americans," Obama said.

If tax relief doesn't count as spending with some cost associated with it (though I assume you agree at least that it increases the deficit), does that mean the stimulus package cost $499 billion (i.e. the non-tax relief part of its stated price tag)?

Analysis: Democrat-Controlled House Passed At Least $1.171 Trillion in Net Tax Increases in 2009 | House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican

Not a Dime in Increases under the DemocRATS... Really?...

Since your list includes bills that never became law, what do you think the significance of it is?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" was merely rhetoric? If so, what other statements Obama made are "merely rhetoric" and shouldn't be taken seriously? What statements should we take seriously from Obama or other Democratic candidates?

I think you might want to look up what the word "rhetoric" means. You seem to be a bit confused.

But yes, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" is rhetoric.

I know what the term "rhetoric" means. Probably better than you do.
So please answer the other questions.

Of course you do. Everyone knows the great Rabbi knows everything.

I write rhetoric for a living, friend.

And to answer your questions, everything you hear a politician say is rhetoric. Democrat, Republican, whatever.

It's all, by definition, rhetoric.

 

[drsmith1072]

^For the Love of God... Does he even Understand what he's saying?...

The question is.....do you? Seriously, please justify how the rich should be given tax breaks but the middle class who are struggling shouldn't be given assistance.

Um... It's NOT Barry's Money to Give to us... Or to give to other People.

Not getting Tax Increases is NOT "Spending" on the Part of the Government...

Are you High on Barry Flavor?...



peace...

A business charges for services rendered and can often times increase or lower the amounts charged based on their bottom line so why is it that right wingers who pretend to be all about businesses fail to see that side of the debate??

The government charges taxes to pay for services rendered and if they lower the taxes decreasing the amount of money that they bring in and don't have enough money to cover for expenditures (see bush administration) then they have to borrow from evil communist countries like china to cover them.

The saddest thing of all is how republicans are trying to blame democrats for bush’s tax cuts expiring when the republicans were the ones that CHOSE to make the tax cut temporary for basically two reasons.

1. So they could use them to manipulate the ignorant masses of their own party to believe that if the democrats allow them to expire then the democrats are raising taxes.

2. So that when they made their 10 year budget projections that they wouldn't have to include the tax cuts in their numbers for the full 10 years but only the short time they were active. Only so they could come out and whine about how they needed to be extended even though they chose to make them temporary

The fact is that republicans COULD have chosen to make them permanent but they CHOSE not to. So if they expire when the republicans set them up to expire then the only party to blame is the one that CHOSE to make them temporary in the first place.
So if you get all fired up to attack someone over the bush tax cuts expiring blame the republicans after all it's their fault that they are expiring in the first place.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think you might want to look up what the word "rhetoric" means. You seem to be a bit confused.

But yes, "if you make less than $200,000 a year your taxes will not go up" is rhetoric.

I know what the term "rhetoric" means. Probably better than you do.
So please answer the other questions.

Of course you do. Everyone knows the great Rabbi knows everything.

I write rhetoric for a living, friend.

And to answer your questions, everything you hear a politician say is rhetoric. Democrat, Republican, whatever.

It's all, by definition, rhetoric.

"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?

And you clearly do not know what "rhetoric" is if you say you "write it for a living." You might write advertising copy. You might write headlines. You might Hallmark greeting cards. But you dont write "rhetoric."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know what the term "rhetoric" means. Probably better than you do.
So please answer the other questions.

Of course you do. Everyone knows the great Rabbi knows everything.

I write rhetoric for a living, friend.

And to answer your questions, everything you hear a politician say is rhetoric. Democrat, Republican, whatever.

It's all, by definition, rhetoric.

"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?

Oh, ok. I get it.

You DON'T know what rhetoric is.

In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.

In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.

 

[drsmith1072]

Seriously?... I'm NOT Rich by ANY Stretch and my Taxes are going to go up because Barry and his Party are in Power...

The Government should do with LESS when Times are Lean...

And those who have Generationally Fed @ the Teat of the Beast should do with Less...

Lord Knows I have Done with Less since 2008...

And now I get to Pay Higher Taxes.



peace...

Your state taxes depend upon which ever party controls your state so obama and the government are not to blame for that. Talk to your state representatives.

Furthermore, what taxes of yours are going to go up?? Got any specifics?? Other than tanning beds that is. LOL

Oh and could you please explain who you are referring to with your statement about "generationally fed @ the teat of the beast"? How about some clarification?

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course you do. Everyone knows the great Rabbi knows everything.

I write rhetoric for a living, friend.

And to answer your questions, everything you hear a politician say is rhetoric. Democrat, Republican, whatever.

It's all, by definition, rhetoric.

"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?

Oh, ok. I get it.

You DON'T know what rhetoric is.

In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.

In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.

So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?

Oh, ok. I get it.

You DON'T know what rhetoric is.

In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.

In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.

So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.

Success!

 

[drsmith1072]

"By definition"? Whose definition? Yours?
So your point is that nothing a politician says has any validity at all.
If so, how do you decide whom to vote for?

Oh, ok. I get it.

You DON'T know what rhetoric is.

In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.

In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.

So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.

And once again you show how dishonest you truly are.

He said he pays attention to what they do and how they actually vote, so why try to claim that he doesn't judge them based on what they DO when he clearly says that he does? It seems to me that the doctor is a firm believer in "actions speak louder than words" and all you can try to do is put words into his mouth as you try to attack him for something he never said.

Thanks for once again proving how dishonest you are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, ok. I get it.

You DON'T know what rhetoric is.

In terms of local politics, I determine whom to vote for because I know them, I sit in chambers when they vote, and I see what they do. I know who their friends are, and I know where their money comes from.

In terms of national politics, I rarely vote.

So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.

And once again you show how dishonest you truly are.

He said he pays attention to what they do and how they actually vote, so why try to claim that he doesn't judge them based on what they DO when he clearly says that he does? It seems to me that the doctor is a firm believer in "actions speak louder than words" and all you can try to do is put words into his mouth as you try to attack him for something he never said.

Thanks for once again proving how dishonest you are.

Thanks. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who understood what I was saying.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you admit you vote for someone based on their looks. Because you maintain that everything a politician says is rhetoric. That would hold whatever the situation. So if you can't judge someone based on what they say and do the only thing left is what they look like.
Thanks for clearing up that you are a moron of the galactic class. Like there was any doubt.
And just for being so stupid that debate is impossible, you go on iggy.

And once again you show how dishonest you truly are.

He said he pays attention to what they do and how they actually vote, so why try to claim that he doesn't judge them based on what they DO when he clearly says that he does? It seems to me that the doctor is a firm believer in "actions speak louder than words" and all you can try to do is put words into his mouth as you try to attack him for something he never said.

Thanks for once again proving how dishonest you are.

Thanks. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who understood what I was saying.

The blind leading the blind.
So you must always vote for the incumbent, since the challenger, especially in local elections, has little to no track record in voting.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And once again you show how dishonest you truly are.

He said he pays attention to what they do and how they actually vote, so why try to claim that he doesn't judge them based on what they DO when he clearly says that he does? It seems to me that the doctor is a firm believer in "actions speak louder than words" and all you can try to do is put words into his mouth as you try to attack him for something he never said.

Thanks for once again proving how dishonest you are.

Thanks. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who understood what I was saying.

The blind leading the blind.
So you must always vote for the incumbent, since the challenger, especially in local elections, has little to no track record in voting.

Everyone has a track record. Whether its voting, or what they did before they ran, EVERYONE has a track record. And, since you're clearly a little deficient on the whole "reading" thing, I'll repeat myself. I don't just look at their voting history - I look at what they've DONE. Who their friends are, and where the money's coming from. Not what they say.

And rhetoric has its place as well.