Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Feb 5, 2013.
You are a ****** idiot.
Why is it so hard for liberals to understand that when you have had a reduced tax rate for almost 10 years, to the vast majority of the population if you let that expire, for all intents and purposes you are raising taxes? If you want to get semantic, then yea, its not a tax hike. In terms of real life impact it most definitely is.
Coming from you that's a badge of honor.
Because we were smart enough to realize what was actually happening in real life instead of the fantasy world where un-needed stupid tax cuts that finally are allowed to expire are called tax hikes.
And not in the current news world where even the recent very temporary payroll tax discount expiring is described very incorrectly as "Obama raising your taxes" on every single news channel.
liberal media my big fat ass
Why is so hard for conservatives to understand that sound economic policy can not include jacking up defense spending, starting various wars around the world, increasing the intelligence community tenfold, creating various new agencies, while simultaneously cutting tax rates?
And now you're shocked, SHOCKED that there is a ballooning deficit.
Covered brilliantly in this book.
It's almost like the Republicans deliberately run up massive deficits so that, down the road, there's no money to run the government.
Probably for the same reasons that "conservatives" have difficulty with the concept that taxes were at their absolute lowest on the "job creators" in a couple of decades and yet the lower they went the fewer jobs. Oh, and by the way, it should be noted that the "tax increase" you speak of still leaves every single person in this country paying less in federal tax then they did at the end of the Clinton administration. Yes, even those poor top 1%ers.
I'm just saying i understand why people view it as a tax increase even though its not. I disagree with them, but i understand where they get it from. I suppose it would be easier if i just labeled all the people who think that stupid.
Because you have a lazy definition of conservative. While your post is mostly true people who believe those things are Republicans, neo-cons or morons but not conservative.
You can stop trying to use the defense spending issue as some kind of bludgeon also. I side with republicans on some issues, defense spending is most definitely not one of them.
Ummm, no that's not right. Taxes reduced are monies returned to those who earned them. I don't understood how politicians and/or libs figure that the money we earn and money that the gov't takes from us is their money. If the gov't usually takes $20 from me, then decides to only take $16, it's not like they are giving me free money.
Money the government prints and money that the government provides the safe context within which you can earn that money.
Barack Obama's a conservative?
Just almost like.
Its the redwhiteandblue sparkles that make it different.
Not just for bankers this time? How unfair to bankers.
Obama's amnesty plan for immigrants much tougher than Ronnie's:
Draft immigration legislation being hammered out by the White House was leaked to USA Today over the weekend, and the paper had no trouble finding Republicans who balked at the president's plan. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of the members of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" who recently cooperated on a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform,called the White House draft "dead on arrival."
Opponents of immigration reform however, see the exchange as theater—"the point of leaking the bill is to enable Rubio to say that his amnesty plan is waaay different from the dastardly Obama plan," wrote the Center for Immigration Studies' Mark Krikorian at National Review. As a policy matter, Krikorian isn't entirely wrong: Rubio's hometown paper, the Miami Herald, also got ahold of the White House's drafts and concluded that they "closely resemble many of the reforms advanced in 2011 by Obama and, more recently, by Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio." (If you've been reading Mother Jones, that's hardly surprising.)
What may be surprising however, is that Obama's bill sets out a very long road to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. As Suzy Khimm writes at the Washington Post, under Obama's proposal, those undocumented immigrants who are eligible for legalization would likely have to wait around 13 years for full citizenship—eight years of temporary legal status before acquiring a green card, then, as is standard under US law, about another five for citizenship. (If a backlog of existing visa applications is cleared before that initial eight years, the total wait could be shorter.) Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of the pro-reform group America's Voice, tells Khimm that Obama's proposal would "delay citizenship another generation."
Compare that with the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 that was signed by President Ronald Reagan, which allowedundocumented immigrants to apply for green cards after a temporary legal status of just 18 months. Add in the standard five years green-card holders have to wait before seeking citizenship, and under the bill Reagan signed the path to citizenship was half as long as Obama's would be.
So if you're looking for an indication of where America's immigration debate stands in 2013, note that Obama's liberal proposal would be significantly harsher than the law put in place by the patron saint of American conservatism more than 25 years ago.
That qualifies as Obama failure.
Isn't lying again TOS? Or are we all free to just keep repeating any old bullshit we make up despite said bullshit being decisively disproved?
If we can just say whatever we want with no consequences, then let's discuss how NAMBLA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.
I'd say it qualifies as "yellow snow."
It offers the Republicans a chance to oppose Obama, fix a problem, and buy a slice of electoral relevance all at the same time.
But recent experience suggests they'll offer a version that requires a 25 year wait, and thus manage only the "oppose Obama" part.
While hanging a RINO label on Rubio to start the next primary cycle...
Either way Obama wins.
Chris Hayes had a chart this weekend showing how Republican voters support a comprehensive immigration bill, but when Obama's name is attached to it, the numbers flip. Considering the Republican House caucus is the real obstacle to getting immigration reform passed, and Obama is enemy #1 for them, it may take some of Obama's three-dimensional chess playing to get this thing across the finish line.
Maybe Obama could change his name by deed poll? To Herbert J Smith, or something? Or do you need a 2/3 senate majority to do that as well?
The cartoonist in my local paper must've watched Hayes.
I repped this post, and unironically, too.
I agree with Quayle's basic point that too often liberals have the mentality he describes. Obviously me and Quayle disagree on many, many (many, many, many) things. But I think he's right here.
Taxes are a necessary evil. Quayle and I differ on the weight given to the last two words of that sentence, but he's right on the main point.
That's just awful.
Everyone knows it's the other way around.
And as usual, when Obama wins, America loses.