Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does a great job highlighting how serious the economic collapse was that Obama inherited, his accomplishments, and how difficult the Republicans have made it for Obama to do things to help the country.
It sucks that the stimulus had to add to the deficit, but it had to be done to save us from another Great Depression. But, instead of helping Obama lower the deficit by accepting a deal to cut the deficit by $4 trillion dollars ($3 trillion in cuts / $1 trillion in revenues) over the next ten years, the Republicans refused the deal because it would modestly increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, who can most afford to help the country that blesses them with their wealth (in a thousand different ways) ease the deficit.
While the country was reeling and most needed help from its elected leaders, Republicans had only two goals: oppose everything Obama tries to do (even if it had been a Republican idea in the past), and 2) protect the wealthiest of the wealthy. To heck with the rest of the country. They deserve none of the credit for helping this country recover and get back on its feet. Republicans must go! It is not enough that Obama maintain the presidency, we must throw as many Republicans out of office as we can (especially Tea Partiers): in the House, in the Senate, and in every governorship and state legislature across the country. They have waged a war on women, and unions, and on everyone who isn't a 1%er.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 04-30-2012 at 09:04 AM..
There's no refuting to be done. It's all about which reality you live in. There's the liberal reality, in which money belongs to the government, and the government is doing it's citizens a privilege by letting them keep it. In this liberal world, of course it makes sense to say that the raising taxes is an ideal way to close the deficit - because the deficit is a product of not taxing enough. Tax cuts, in this world, are a form of spending. To end tax breaks is to cut spending.
Then there's the conservative reality, where all the money belongs to the individual who earned it and all individuals, through the consent of the governed, allow the government the privilege of using their money for public good. In this world, tax cuts don't increase the deficit, only a failure to cut spending to match yearly revenue increases the deficit.
You could also frame this in a way that makes conservatives seem like the bad guys if that's what you prefer, but at least you see the fundamental difference. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a rather major philosophical difference of opinion.
There's no refuting to be done. It's all about which reality you live in. There's the liberal reality, in which money belongs to the government, and the government is doing it's citizens a privilege by letting them keep it. In this liberal world, of course it makes sense to say that the raising taxes is an ideal way to close the deficit - because the deficit is a product of not taxing enough. Tax cuts, in this world, are a form of spending. To end tax breaks is to cut spending.
Then there's the conservative reality, where all the money belongs to the individual who earned it and all individuals, through the consent of the governed, allow the government the privilege of using their money for public good. In this world, tax cuts don't increase the deficit, only a failure to cut spending to match yearly revenue increases the deficit.
You could also frame this in a way that makes conservatives seem like the bad guys if that's what you prefer, but at least you see the fundamental difference. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a rather major philosophical difference of opinion.
In other words, you have no specific retort to Obama's accomplishments?
In other words, you have no specific retort to Obama's accomplishments?
All I need to do is point to economic indicators to refute any semblance of an "accomplishment." But no, this forum is full of my retorts to that, you missed the point of my post.
My post was refuting the claim that Republicans wouldn't accept his "deficit-reduction" package. It's not a political move to block an agenda you're philosophically opposed to. Furthermore, was it not Obama who ultimately extended (and expanded) the Bush Tax Cuts. As far as I'm concerned, he has no room to campaign against them at this point.
There's no refuting to be done. It's all about which reality you live in. There's the liberal reality, in which money belongs to the government, and the government is doing it's citizens a privilege by letting them keep it. In this liberal world, of course it makes sense to say that the raising taxes is an ideal way to close the deficit - because the deficit is a product of not taxing enough. Tax cuts, in this world, are a form of spending. To end tax breaks is to cut spending.
Then there's the conservative reality, where all the money belongs to the individual who earned it and all individuals, through the consent of the governed, allow the government the privilege of using their money for public good. In this world, tax cuts don't increase the deficit, only a failure to cut spending to match yearly revenue increases the deficit.
You could also frame this in a way that makes conservatives seem like the bad guys if that's what you prefer, but at least you see the fundamental difference. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a rather major philosophical difference of opinion.
In a thousand different ways, no American citizen would have his wealth if not for all of the services the government has provided to them. The citizens need to pay the government for the services provided.
The government fights off foreign powers for its citizens. Could a citizen keep his wealth if the government permitted a foreign army to take it from him?
The government fights off domestic enemies: thieves (both common robbers and financial institutions and computer hackers and intellectual property theives, etc). A citizen could not hold on to his wealth if not for all of the policemen and regulators and such, who prevent and/or prosecute thieves of all sorts.
The government through firemen protect an individuals property from fire damage.
The government gave most people a high school education through public schools, so they could get a job (or go to college to get a job) or hire employees who were educated by the government.
The government regulates airlines, so that individuals can make money by traveling. The government regulates trade agreements with other countries so that individuals can make money by selling their products.
The government regulates the air waves so that individuals can distribute commercials via radio or tv to entice people to buy their product, so they can make money.
Man, I could go on and on and on. People would not have their wealth if not for the thousands of things the government does. The least we can do is help pay for all of those services in the form of taxes. And the richest among us are benefiting the most from those governmental services and should be paying more than they currently do for them.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 04-30-2012 at 10:55 AM..
In a thousand different ways, no American citizen would have his wealth if not for all of the services the government has provided to them. The citizens need to pay the government for the services provided.
The government fights off foreign powers for its citizens. Could a citizen keep his wealth if the government permitted a foreign army to take it from him?
The government fights off domestic enemies: theives (both common robbers and financial institutions and computer hackers and intellectual propety theives, etc). A citizen could not hold on to his wealth if not for all of the policemen and regulators and such, who prevent and/or prosecute theives of all sorts.
The government through firemen protect an individuals property from fire damage.
The government gave most people a high school education through public schools, so they could get a job (or go to college to get a job) or hire employees who were educated by the government.
The government regulates airlines, so that individuals can make money by traveling. The government regulates trade agreements with other countries so that individuals can make money by selling their products.
The government regulates the air waves so that individuals can distribute commercials via radio or tv to entice people to buy their product, so they can make money.
Man, I could go on and on and on. People would not have their wealth if not for the thousands of things the government does. The least we can do is help pay for all of those services in the form of taxes. And the richest among us are benefiting the most from those governmental services and should be paying more than they currently do for them.
We the people are the government, it isn't something seperate from us. No one denies the need for government. The fundamental difference is the size of government.
We the people are the government, it isn't something seperate from us. No one denies the need for government. The fundamental difference is the size of government.
Wow, you just posted something I actually agree with. We have some common ground after all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
