Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bass 2.O
If no one else will take at this one --- I will...
Black unemployment started to rise when the recession took place, not when Obama took office and please point out what Obama policies cause the black unemployment rate to rise, give the name of said policy(ies) and show how they impacted black unemployment.
In the 1st 2 years of his admin, B.O. (and more significantly Pelosi/Reid) held EVERY ASPECT of the American hostage with legislative uncertainty..
** The healthcare abortion (whateverthefuck it was that nobody read) that hung over the heads of every employer..
** The threat of cap/trade energy policy and the delegation to the EPA of powers to treat CO2 as a pollutant (as I live and breathe).. Hold your breath, we're still not there..
** The bush tax cuts. This one went right up until the last f'in minute and we're STILL arguing about it.
** The wars abroad.. Still no definitive policy or conclusion.
** Frank/Dodd legislation which wasn't really legislation (just an empty place-holder for regs) and is being developed (Slowly) in back room deals by unaccountable bureaucrats..
EVERRY SINGLE ASPECT of the American economy has been held CAPTIVE by the Pelosi/Reid socialist steam roller and now a more neutered Chief Exec. The UNCERTAINTY of all this for employers is why blacks (and whites) will CONTINUE to suffer in the workforce.. Get a clue --- clear the decks. And tell your troops to catch up on their "in boxes"....
One of the things I find so damn amusing about the healthcare debate is how Republitards argue that so called "Obama Care" is going to hurt employers when in reality it stands to benefit employers just as much as the employees. The health care plan is going to be affordable even to the full time worker and McDonald's, that my friends is going to cost employers less money paying for health care for their employees, a simple way to cut costs, now how could it be job killing legislation?
Getting back to my OP, the suggestion by the rightwing retards in the forum who say that class warfare is being waged are simply parroting and repeating garbage from rightwing pundits from Foxnews and equal retarded bloggers and has nil basis in facts, the data don't support it.
Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it.
Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.
<SNIP>
The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about<SNIP>
The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for? <SNIP>
That’s not right. It’s not fair. <SNIP>
And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -– millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. <SNIP>
Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions.<SNIP>
And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. <SNIP>
Heritage Foundation, the source of official data without a slant,
I understand. when you can nit refute. SHOOT THE MESSENGER.
Try google it has that leftwing slant. So you should be right at home.
You might even pick up what the CEOs are saying
Like this one.
Co-Founder of Home Depot Slams Obama - Katie Pavlich
But that might be to far right fo you, so try google once again and type in regulation costs.
Thanks for playing.
You know, when Flaylo posts from Huffington Post you laugh and joke that he cannot be serious, now you want me to take BS with a slant from Heritage Foundation serious? I posted my data from an unbiased source that simply listen tables of data without any slant.
Getting back to my OP, the suggestion by the rightwing retards in the forum who say that class warfare is being waged are simply parroting and repeating garbage from rightwing pundits from Foxnews and equal retarded bloggers and has nil basis in facts, the data don't support it.
I expected that you were gonna be a little more objective than DENYING the obvious incessant repetition of class warfare rhetoric by the Prez and the Dem Party. And actually I expected when you said you weren't aligned with the Dem Party that you would recognize the obvious problem that needs to get fixed.. The Prez does.. In fact, he just said..
Address by the President to the Nation | The White House
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release July 25, 2011 Address by the President to the Nation
East Room
9:01 P.M. EDT
Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that cant balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money - the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we wont have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it.
Now WHO IS SERIOUS about fixing this??
Finally, lets ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.
<SNIP>
The only reason this balanced approach isnt on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach - an approach that doesnt ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about<SNIP>
The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, dont understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies dont get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we dont need and didnt ask for? <SNIP>
Thats not right. Its not fair. <SNIP>
And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What were talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. <SNIP>
Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions.<SNIP>
And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. <SNIP>
Are you deaf, dumb or blind to this crap? ONE SPEECH -- Complete fixation on sticking the bill to the top 2%.. Not only that, but the guy in conflating INCOME tax, with CAP GAINS tax, with PAYROLL tax as tho ALL of those things should be raised on the evil rich.. Oopsie, he forgot to use the Death Tax tool..
With so much spending to cut, so many SUBSIDIES to cut, is he serious about waging this class war.. And why do you deny that the ENTIRE DEM party is fixated on this one answer to all our national problems?? We're not buying it.. Lefties don't understand why the 98% don't just RISE UP and TAKE IT.. It's because there are principles involved that the left cant appreciate because they have no fear of govt power and evidently no sense of self-preservation either...
The Forbes 400 pay taxes at only a 17% rate.
Why should the billionaires have a lower tax rate than we do?
I understand. when you can nit refute. SHOOT THE MESSENGER.
Try google it has that leftwing slant. So you should be right at home.
You might even pick up what the CEOs are saying
Like this one.
Co-Founder of Home Depot Slams Obama - Katie Pavlich
But that might be to far right fo you, so try google once again and type in regulation costs.
Thanks for playing.
You know, when Flaylo posts from Huffington Post you laugh and joke that he cannot be serious, now you want me to take BS with a slant from Heritage Foundation serious? I posted my data from an unbiased source that simply listen tables of data without any slant.
I asked you to do a simple search on regulation cost.
If you chose to remain ignorant I wont stop you.
Have another glass of that obaminaide.
The Forbes 400 pay taxes at only a 17% rate.
Why should the billionaires have a lower tax rate than we do?
What rate did you pay last year, dipstick?
The real question is: why should they pay any more?
You know, when Flaylo posts from Huffington Post you laugh and joke that he cannot be serious, now you want me to take BS with a slant from Heritage Foundation serious? I posted my data from an unbiased source that simply listen tables of data without any slant.
I asked you to do a simple search on regulation cost.
If you chose to remain ignorant I wont stop you.
Have another glass of that obaminaide.
Again moron, the source I quoted was all stats with no spin, you're asking me to do the equivalent of accepting FoxNews analysis on the economy, that doesn't cut it, go back to school and do some real research from an unbiased source.
About | The Heritage Foundation
Getting back to my OP, the suggestion by the rightwing retards in the forum who say that class warfare is being waged are simply parroting and repeating garbage from rightwing pundits from Foxnews and equal retarded bloggers and has nil basis in facts, the data don't support it.
Getting back to the point:
The OP "contention" is dishonest.
There is NO valid argument to be made that the scumbag in chief isn't engaging in class warfare rhetoric.
He learned it at the teat of his Master, Saul Alinsky.
Public proclamations about taxing aircraft owners is clearly pandering bullshit since no amount of increased "revenue" the government could confiscate in that fashion would make the tiniest fucking DENT in the debt problem. And the Alinsky Acolyte in Chief fucking well KNOWS that.
When he talks about getting "more" from the richest people, he is insidiously arguing to those of us who do not qualify as "rich" that "those people" are ripping all of us off at OUR expense. But again, if ht took every penny the rich people already had (whether or not it had already been taxed), he would not resolve our nations dire debt problem.
he is a pandering class warfare preaching dishonest scumbag.
Defending him with the typical Basshole racist spew doesn't change that fact.
Face facts: President Obama is a fraud and the Basshole is one of his willing (would-be) enablers.
Thought you were objective but I see the same rhetoric and spin that rightwingers blow, Obama is simply asking for what a lot of Americans have been asking for, that the rich pay their fair share and stop hiding behind loopholes in the tax code. You righties dishonestly with your extremists rhetoric purposely misinterpret that as waging "class warfare," but the majority of Americans see right through that.
Hot air from Mr Liabilitard as usual with no data to back up that assumption. These are the only replies that the rightwingers are capable of, trying to get others to take their side via emotional personal attacks rather than using data and facts and what's worse is that you idiots like the trained attack dogs that you are, are being the mouthpiece for the rich, not the majority of Americans.
I asked you to do a simple search on regulation cost.
If you chose to remain ignorant I wont stop you.
Have another glass of that obaminaide.
Again moron, the source I quoted was all stats with no spin, you're asking me to do the equivalent of accepting FoxNews analysis on the economy, that doesn't cut it, go back to school and do some real research from an unbiased source.
About | The Heritage Foundation
You havent posted shit!!!! What flavor was that? Grape or Cherry? You havent even searched, but the la la la I cant hear you seems to work for you. LMAO
You know, when Flaylo posts from Huffington Post you laugh and joke that he cannot be serious, now you want me to take BS with a slant from Heritage Foundation serious? I posted my data from an unbiased source that simply listen tables of data without any slant.
I asked you to do a simple search on regulation cost.
If you chose to remain ignorant I wont stop you.
Have another glass of that obaminaide.
Again moron, the source I quoted was all stats with no spin, you're asking me to do the equivalent of accepting FoxNews analysis on the economy, that doesn't cut it, go back to school and do some real research from an unbiased source.
About | The Heritage Foundation
Someone with family in Norway told me that a can of Coke costs $5., but then they have a better standard of living than America.You want to end class warfare? It's easy. A flat tax at a low rate. < 10%. That way everyone pays their fair share. An equal burden on all people. We eliminate the artificial classes that have only been created because of our Government. And we can all start looking at each others as equals and brothers instead of being angry at our brothers because of how much or how little they earn.
Every American should be paying their fair share.
I agree 100%
It will be way more than 10% and democrats wont go with the plan because it wont allow them to sin tax.
Smokes in Chicago are like $9.00 a pack $8.00 of which are taxes, they're taxing energy drinks too. 7 bucks for a can of Red Bull, You know, because someone died of a heart attack after being tased outside of a night club in Chiciago and it was blamed on the Red Bull.
I asked you to do a simple search on regulation cost.
If you chose to remain ignorant I wont stop you.
Have another glass of that obaminaide.
Again moron, the source I quoted was all stats with no spin, you're asking me to do the equivalent of accepting FoxNews analysis on the economy, that doesn't cut it, go back to school and do some real research from an unbiased source.
About | The Heritage Foundation
I am probably wasting my time. But I enjoy a good laugh.
Office of Advocacy - Regulation Economic Research - September 2010 - The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms | SBA.gov
Then we have the whitehouse web site on the subject.
That is freakin comical
About.com: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2003draft_cost-benefit_rpt.pdf
Thought you were objective but I see the same rhetoric and spin that rightwingers blow, Obama is simply asking for what a lot of Americans have been asking for, that the rich pay their fair share and stop hiding behind loopholes in the tax code. You righties dishonestly with your extremists rhetoric purposely misinterpret that as waging "class warfare," but the majority of Americans see right through that.
"pay their fair share" is a liberal euphemism meaning "soak the rich." But the real tax increases will fall on the middle class. The rich are just the bogeyman that fascists like you use to sneak the camel's nose under the tent. Once they get you to buy the notion that the income of the rich is merely a "resource" for the government to dispose of as it pleases, then it doesn't have far to go to convince the average dolt on the street that the rule applies to his income as well.
When the income tax was passed, it's supporters claimed it would only be levied on "millionaires and billionaire." Funny, where have we heard that expression before?
"pay their fair share" is a liberal euphemism meaning "soak the rich."
The rightwingers like to make the bogus claim that higher taxes on the rich constitutes "class warfare," but conveniently ignore the fact that their efforts to cut funding for the poor and disadvantaged, unemployment assistance, funding to schools, funding to improve inner city decay, etc, are all examples of the worst kind of class warfare in themselves.
Of course they like to make their own form of class warfare under the mask of calling it "fiscal conservatism," but we all know the deal about Republican "fiscal conservatism. As I posted in another thread, Republitards are the party of big government and deficits, in the past 30 years not one Republitard president has presided over a surplus while and office and each year the size of government grew while the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, so can the real party of class warfare please stand up?
Again moron, the source I quoted was all stats with no spin, you're asking me to do the equivalent of accepting FoxNews analysis on the economy, that doesn't cut it, go back to school and do some real research from an unbiased source.
About | The Heritage Foundation
I am probably wasting my time. But I enjoy a good laugh.
Office of Advocacy - Regulation Economic Research - September 2010 - The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms | SBA.gov
VERY GOOD.
VERY GOOD.
Then we have the whitehouse web site on the subject.
That is freakin comical
About.com: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2003draft_cost-benefit_rpt.pdf
In regards to source number one, the data states that small businesses are disproportionately affected by regulation than the bigger businesses, why do you think that? Its the same dynamic that plays out with the rich and middleclass, those that are richer are disproportionally hit the least while the less rich are hit the hardest. Quite simply put, the bigger businesses have the money to throw away to pay the costs, the smaller businesses don't. Plus if you bothered to click the link at the bottom, the data may say released in September 2010, but it only deals with data actually from 2008, once again, who was president in 2008?
I am probably wasting my time. But I enjoy a good laugh.
Office of Advocacy - Regulation Economic Research - September 2010 - The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms | SBA.gov
VERY GOOD.
VERY GOOD.
Then we have the whitehouse web site on the subject.
That is freakin comical
About.com: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2003draft_cost-benefit_rpt.pdf
In regards to source number one, the data states that small businesses are disproportionately affected by regulation than the bigger businesses, why do you think that? Its the same dynamic that plays out with the rich and middleclass, those that are richer are disproportionally hit the least while the less rich are hit the hardest. Quite simply put, the bigger businesses have the money to throw away to pay the costs, the smaller businesses don't. Plus if you bothered to click the link at the bottom, the data may say released in September 2010, but it only deals with data actually from 2008, once again, who was president in 2008?
Well thats a no brainer as small business must comply with the same regs but doesnt do the same dollar amount of business. But you found a way to bring class warfare back.
VERY GOOD.
