Please Post Reasons Why You Want Obama to Raise Taxes Here. Thanks!

[Wicked Jester]

Where's all those jobs ya' PROMISED, ObamaBOY?

Where's all the "SHOVEL READY" projects, ObamaBOY?

Gitmo still open, ObamaBOY?

Are we still in Iraq, ObamaBOY?

Unemployment under 8%, ObamaBOY?

Figured out how to run this great country yet, ObamaBoy?

Why are we going into double dip recession, ObamaBOY?

Have you contacted your good buddy Rezko to help ya' find ANOTHER fraudulent real estate deal, so you actually have a place to live come '12, ObamaBOY?

When are you going to do the right thing and resign, ya' fucking inept idiot?

 

[Bfgrn]

And HERE is where your right wingers ALWAYS fail. There is never one single penny of human capital in your 'solutions'

During the Great Depression, conservatives were critical of New Deal programs for the unemployed. They said the economy if left alone, would recover in the long run. Secretary of Commerce Harry Hopkins replied":: "People don't eat in the long run, they eat every day."

Right wing solutions are great, just as long as some group of human being evaporate...

Yep...it's how they operate. It's their M.O.!

And they call themselves Christians

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Raising taxes loses jobs. If a business owner pays more in taxes he has less topay his help. If a business owner has to pay more taxes he has to charge more for his goods and services.
If government has more revenue they expand and hire more people that need more $ that demand more tases that need more people that need more taxes that need more people that need more taxes thagt need more people that need more taxes.
People, not corporations, pay taxes. All a corporation EVER does is collect the taxes in increased prices.

Ah.....so success and entrepreneurship is dependent on government? If the mean old government raises the taxes on the wealthy, they will pout, have a hissy fit and refuse to be successful and not hire people...

Maybe they didn't get your memo...HOW did Bush's tax cuts stimulate jobs pea brain???

Gee...I wonder how many of those jobs Clinton is creditied with were jobs in the Dot.com industry.

And I wonder how many of those dot com jobs lost, that never should have been to begin with, were put into Bush's column.

So by that logic any jobs connected with the real estate bubble, that burst under Bush, but that were then lost under Obama should be put back on Bush's shoulders?

Kind of loses its charm then doesn't it?

 

[Gadawg73]

Jarhead...your post makes no sense.

Bush failed. Plain and simple. He shoved all the bills under the rug and shoveled the whole thing to the next administration.

Well its time to pay the piper, and you Neo-Cons are squealing like pigs talking about "Stop da spendin'" and "Raisin' arr deficits."

A day late and a dollar short.

Wise up!

I R not a neo-con.
The problem has never been a lack of $ in WAshington. The problem is WE SPEND TOO MUCH.
Why we pay Medicare for wealthy citizens will not be corrected if we taxed at 100%.
Spending is out of control. We all know that so where DO WE CUT?
What program would you cut and how much?

 

[MarcATL]

That's a question for the Republicans right?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Well, if Obama wanted to raise taxes in order to fund the mass executions of liberals, i'd be more than happy to see an increase!


Other than that, raisng taxes during an economic downturn is fucking stupid, and only clueless liberal idiots believe otherwise.

 

[daveman]

Hey pea brain, WHAT did Bush do for the first 7 months? He IGNORED the warnings he was given.

Some indeterminate time in the future, a liquor store in America will be robbed by a young man, 18-25, with a shotgun.

There. Now you have as much information as Bush did.

Prevent the crime.

WOW, another pea brain...a twenty percenter....

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

March 21, 2004

What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

Clarke's Take On Terror - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Clarke? Clarke?! Clarke's fulla shit.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.​

Clarke and the White House had nothing to do with foiling that attack.

But three times, the U.S. got lucky. The Jordanians broke up an al-Qaeda cell in Amman; Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian based in Montreal, panicked when stopped at a border crossing from Canada while carrying explosives intended for Los Angeles International Airport; and on Jan. 3, 2000, an al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. The Sullivans in Yemen foundered after terrorists overloaded their small boat.

So the Cabinet having meetings "nearly" every day made Ressam panic at the border?

 

[Avatar4321]

And HERE is where your right wingers ALWAYS fail. There is never one single penny of human capital in your 'solutions'

During the Great Depression, conservatives were critical of New Deal programs for the unemployed. They said the economy if left alone, would recover in the long run. Secretary of Commerce Harry Hopkins replied":: "People don't eat in the long run, they eat every day."

Right wing solutions are great, just as long as some group of human being evaporate...

Yep...it's how they operate. It's their M.O.!

And they call themselves Christians

We are Christians. Which is why we don't outsource our responsibilities to care for others to the government. See we prefer helping people. Not creating a bueaucratic nightmare that keeps people dependent and wastes human potential.

 

[Gadawg73]

That's a question for the Republicans right?

We are all citizens.
What does it matter what party you are in?
What program should we cut?
You do agree we spend too much, right?

 

[WillowTree]

Please help us Conservatives understand this. Thanks.

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon - IBD - Investors.com

Please post why you hate your fellow Americans. You ask a ridiculous question, you get a ridiculous response.

why do you hate asswipe? and what was ridiculous about the question trashman?

 

[xotoxi]

Please Post Reasons Why You Want Obama to Raise Taxes Here. Thanks!http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...007211841/The-Tax-Tsunami-On-The-Horizon.aspx

Because I'd like a new car. Obama promised that to me.

 

[Political Junky]

It's not renewing the tax cuts for the richest Americans, which threw us into a depression.

 

[Freedomfan1776]

And HERE is where your right wingers ALWAYS fail. There is never one single penny of human capital in your 'solutions'

Right wing solutions are great, just as long as some group of human being evaporate...

I would like to take issue with that point. I do not speak for anyone other than myself, however most of my sentiments would be classified by an outside observer as libertarian/conservative. Any solution which I have ever devised, always includes man as the utmost important player. The one thing which differentiates man from other species is his ability to reason and use his mind. That is something which can not be duplicated by a computer or any other artificial means. Each individual has great potential and is the most valuable player in any economy. That being said, the reason why less government intrusion into people's lives leads to economic growth has to do with the fact that if man is allowed to pursue dreams for the betterment of society, he will profit. If his dreams are counter to what society wants, well then he will fail. But in the process he will learn what he will need to do to become successful. That is something which, more often than not, can not be taught.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, if Obama wanted to raise taxes in order to fund the mass executions of liberals, i'd be more than happy to see an increase!


Other than that, raisng taxes during an economic downturn is fucking stupid, and only clueless liberal idiots believe otherwise.

Ronald Reagan, Almighty God of all Conservatism, raised taxes during the recession of 1982.
In fact, it was the biggest tax increase in history. Based on your criterion for 'fucking stupid',

can you name a president who was more 'fucking stupid' than that?

 

[AquaAthena]

Please help us Conservatives understand this. Thanks.

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon - IBD - Investors.com

Please post why you hate your fellow Americans. You ask a ridiculous question, you get a ridiculous response.

I have seen way nmore success stories by those that have done for themselves than I have by those that have things done for them.

I want my fellow Americans to be happy. One is happy when they earn. One feels success. One feels reward.

All I ever see from those that take is shame and embarrassment in their face. THAT saddens me.

Sorry. I do not fall for that..."If you dont want to give then you must hate them".

I give them plenty. I give them the opportunity to earn. Sadly, many prefer taking instead.

I agree. A few years ago I read an article that said the happiest people are those who work for compensation and the second happiest group of people are volunteers. Those who do nothing, but take, become sullen and angry and usually at themselves first. On some level, they know they are parasites....

 

[Bfgrn]

Some indeterminate time in the future, a liquor store in America will be robbed by a young man, 18-25, with a shotgun.

There. Now you have as much information as Bush did.

Prevent the crime.

WOW, another pea brain...a twenty percenter....

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

March 21, 2004

What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

Clarke's Take On Terror - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Clarke? Clarke?! Clarke's fulla shit.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.​

Clarke and the White House had nothing to do with foiling that attack.

But three times, the U.S. got lucky. The Jordanians broke up an al-Qaeda cell in Amman; Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian based in Montreal, panicked when stopped at a border crossing from Canada while carrying explosives intended for Los Angeles International Airport; and on Jan. 3, 2000, an al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. The Sullivans in Yemen foundered after terrorists overloaded their small boat.

So the Cabinet having meetings "nearly" every day made Ressam panic at the border?

Hey pea brain, here's an idea that might save you the embarrassment of proving you are a pea brain. Next time you post an article, READ IT first. And don't add your OWN title. The article supports almost everything Clarke says.

The Bush WH did NOT put terrorism on the front burner, and they dismissed warnings from Clarke and George Tenet.


From the article YOU posted...

As the new Administration took office, Rice kept Clarke in his job as counterterrorism czar. In early February, he repeated to Vice President Dick Cheney the briefing he had given to Rice and Hadley. There are differing opinions on how seriously the Bush team took Clarke's warnings. Some members of the outgoing Administration got the sense that the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism. "It was clear," says one, "that this was not the same priority to them that it was to us."

For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was obsessed with setting up a national system of missile defense. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was absorbed by a long review of the military's force structure. Attorney General John Ashcroft had come into office as a dedicated crime buster. Rice was desperately trying to keep in line a national-security team—including Rumsfeld, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell—whose members had wildly different agendas and styles. "Terrorism," says a former Clinton White House official, speaking of the new Administration, "wasn't on their plate of key issues." Al-Qaeda had not been a feature of the landscape when the Republicans left office in 1993. The Bush team, says an official, "had to learn about [al-Qaeda] and figure out where it fit into their broader foreign policy.' But doing so meant delay.

Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death.

 

[Bfgrn]

Please help us Conservatives understand this. Thanks.

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon - IBD - Investors.com

Please post why you hate your fellow Americans. You ask a ridiculous question, you get a ridiculous response.

I have seen way nmore success stories by those that have done for themselves than I have by those that have things done for them.

I want my fellow Americans to be happy. One is happy when they earn. One feels success. One feels reward.

All I ever see from those that take is shame and embarrassment in their face. THAT saddens me.

Sorry. I do not fall for that..."If you dont want to give then you must hate them".

I give them plenty. I give them the opportunity to earn. Sadly, many prefer taking instead.

Your unbelievably ignorant, narcissistic and arrogant post brings to mind the wisdom of Oscar Wilde: 'Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.'

People are not failing because of a lack of motivation, it is because of a lack of JOBS. What you have just done is justify their extinction in YOUR mind...

 

[rightwinger]

Simple reason

Bush cut taxes while we were at war. Those tax cuts and unnecessary war costs led to a $5 trillion deficit.

Moving back to where we were before Bush cut taxes on his buddies will relieve the need to deficit spend

Now if we can only pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan we could spend money where it is needed instead of on puppet republics

 

[Jarhead]

Please post why you hate your fellow Americans. You ask a ridiculous question, you get a ridiculous response.

I have seen way nmore success stories by those that have done for themselves than I have by those that have things done for them.

I want my fellow Americans to be happy. One is happy when they earn. One feels success. One feels reward.

All I ever see from those that take is shame and embarrassment in their face. THAT saddens me.

Sorry. I do not fall for that..."If you dont want to give then you must hate them".

I give them plenty. I give them the opportunity to earn. Sadly, many prefer taking instead.

Your unbelievably ignorant, narcissistic and arrogant post brings to mind the wisdom of Oscar Wilde: 'Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.'

People are not failing because of a lack of motivation, it is because of a lack of JOBS. What you have just done is justify their extinction in YOUR mind...

That is how you opted to take it.

When I was fired years ago, I blamed everyone but myself. I blamed my employer, my co-workers, my clients. Heck, I blamed my parents, my educators, my years in the military.

We were in a recession and I was a victim.

So I sat down and contemplated how I would survive.

And I started my own business without a dime to work with. It was hard work and a major sacrifice. It was a struggle. But it worked.

And I know many that are doing the exact smae thing right now.

And I know just as many that are sitting around waiting for things to happen and wondering why things are not happening.

Or...you could take my post the way you took it all in an effort to discredit me.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have seen way nmore success stories by those that have done for themselves than I have by those that have things done for them.

I want my fellow Americans to be happy. One is happy when they earn. One feels success. One feels reward.

All I ever see from those that take is shame and embarrassment in their face. THAT saddens me.

Sorry. I do not fall for that..."If you dont want to give then you must hate them".

I give them plenty. I give them the opportunity to earn. Sadly, many prefer taking instead.

Your unbelievably ignorant, narcissistic and arrogant post brings to mind the wisdom of Oscar Wilde: 'Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.'

People are not failing because of a lack of motivation, it is because of a lack of JOBS. What you have just done is justify their extinction in YOUR mind...

That is how you opted to take it.

When I was fired years ago, I blamed everyone but myself. I blamed my employer, my co-workers, my clients. Heck, I blamed my parents, my educators, my years in the military.

We were in a recession and I was a victim.

So I sat down and contemplated how I would survive.

And I started my own business without a dime to work with. It was hard work and a major sacrifice. It was a struggle. But it worked.

And I know many that are doing the exact smae thing right now.

And I know just as many that are sitting around waiting for things to happen and wondering why things are not happening.

Or...you could take my post the way you took it all in an effort to discredit me.

I don't have to discredit you, you did that all by yourself. I don't have any problem with you defining your own happiness. BUT, when you have the audacity to define happiness for OTHERS, all you are doing is dismissing them, because they do not meet YOUR criteria.