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.
In my opinion Obama is moving too far right of center with his x-Clinton admin appointments. I would prefer a policy that moves towards income redistribution via progressive taxation back to the people that created the wealth by spending money on our deteriorating civil infrastructure. This will require as much money as the Iraq War but will not be spending it on destruction but on the materials (steel industry anyone) and the labor (skilled union ironworkers and equipment operators for example) needed to make it easier for business to profitably transport products within the US.
lol...The Republicans are in charge...the Republican socialists proposed the bailouts and implemented them at the highest level, hard to blame that on a guy who's not President....
How does one fill government positions with folks experienced in Government who are neither Democrat or Republican and haven't worked in any Administration? Just Curious.
Exactly. I thought Paulsen was appointed by Bush and the bailout of the financials was the brain child of the Bush administration. The problem is that once you start this, all other industries are going to come with their hands out. Evil seems to disregard any involvement of the Bush admin. The fact that Congress relented is because they knew they would then be blamed for the collapse of these companies so it was basically political suicide. If the WH had not pushed for this, Congress may have come up with other options but once we opened the gate...
I think this is a great thread topic and thank the OP.
I didn't vote for Obama either since I am a Republican, but so far, he hasn't made any decisions that I cringed over. Even if or when he does, I would only discuss the issue, not constantly bash him personally like the liberals have done Bush. I think this is a perfect time to set an example of how the office of the United States President is supposed to be respected, even when you don't agree with all his policies or decisions.
I think this is a great thread topic and thank the OP.
I didn't vote for Obama either since I am a Republican, but so far, he hasn't made any decisions that I cringed over. Even if or when he does, I would only discuss the issue, not constantly bash him personally like the liberals have done Bush. I think this is a perfect time to set an example of how the office of the United States President is supposed to be respected, even when you don't agree with all his policies or decisions.
Somehow as a liberal, I just feel that I have been bashed. There is no cover for the disaster of the Bush administration by saying something moderately nice about Obama. It doesnt wash.
Yeah, so far so good. As I've mentioned before on this board, Obama is NOT a Far Left Radical but rather a Pragmatist and will govern from the Center. He is smart and THINKS before he acts. Though he has been left with an enormous mess, I'm convinced he is the right person for job (especially at this troublesome time).
Ken
WE both said that over and over. He is somewhat right of center and the fear that he was in left field was not justified if you looked at his advisors. The same economists he is appointing are the same ones who have been advising him. Take some time and research Behavior Finance/Economics and you will understand where he is going.
Bush was the culmination of a previous political era that was marked by conflict and partisan behavior. Obama hopefully is the first of a new era. Bush should not be blamed for all of the political rancor that preceded him and stayed with him.
I think what he said was COMPLETELY misunderstood.
He was saying to that blasted Joe the Plumber/William Hung that hey, you benefited, why not give others a chance to benefit too. Joe the blunder was saying that he doesn't want to have to pay higher taxes, and Obama's point basically was, though stated more nicely - suck it up, dude.
Not that he wants to enact a socialist system. Just that it might be nice for those who can pay more to do so, as those who can't really can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by findingmesomeday
This is a statement of his where I do have problems. I believe that prosperity exists and is possible for anyone here in America but I don't believe in "spreading it around" if you have to rob Peter to pay Paul (or play Robin Hood). If someone works hard and makes a good living, why penalize them so that someone living on public assistance can get a bigger handout? Yes, I know I'm generalizing and it's not all that black/white, but in my opinion, that's the gist of the "spread it around" mentality that bugs me so much.
I can get completely behind encouraging everyone to be the best they can be and providing economic carrots to do so. But no free handouts, especially at the expense of other hardworking people. (taxpayers)
I do believe that inheritance taxes are very appropriate.....that is a good time to do some redistribution......I dont think that Cindy McCain or Theresa Heinz or Paris Hilton or Chelsea Clinton or the Romney boys.....have a right to inherit the full family fortune.....at the time the estate is settled....a good chunk of family wealth should get re-invested in America.
QUOTE]
Really, great idea, pay taxes on everything you have worked hard to earn, and then get taxed again when you die. You must not expect an inhertance, nor do you have anything earned to leave anyone, otherwise you would feel differently....
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.