Barack Obama: A Historic President

[Doc Holliday]

Is the collapse of the American economy inevitable? George Bush tried his best to destroy it, but even he didn't complete the job. Now it appears that, despite the best efforts of the Republicans in Congress to complete Bush's sabotage, the economy may finally be on the way back.

I agree. Actually, i don't believe that the US economy is as bad as the GOP have claimed. Of course, they've been trashing the US economy ever since Obama gained control of the WH. They'll do anything in their power to denigrate it & make it worse than it is. History has shown that if voters believe that their economy is bad, they'll vote for change. Since day 1, the GOP has made it it's goal to oppose Obama on everything & do their best to prevent (or make voters believe) the economy from improving. This is how they figure they'll regain the WH.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

I agree. Actually, i don't believe that the US economy is as bad as the GOP have claimed. Of course, they've been trashing the US economy ever since Obama gained control of the WH. They'll do anything in their power to denigrate it & make it worse than it is. History has shown that if voters believe that their economy is bad, they'll vote for change. Since day 1, the GOP has made it it's goal to oppose Obama on everything & do their best to prevent (or make voters believe) the economy from improving. This is how they figure they'll regain the WH.

The biggest problem with the economy is unemployment. And the biggest problem there stems from the huge incentives the Bush administration gave to corporations to move jobs overseas. When you consider all the ways the Bush team fucked the American people, it's amazing that Obama was able to (just barely) avoid a serious depression.

You know, in all of American history, when the country has gone to war, the President has asked the American people to make sacrifices. There were all kinds of rationing and such during WW II, for example. This time when Bush started the War of Lies of Mass Destruction, not only did he not ask the people to make sacrifices, he also cut taxes, mostly for the very rich, at the same time. Not only insane, but criminally insane. If I have one bone to pick with the Obama administration, it's that they haven't prosecuted Bush, Cheney et al.

 

[Lovemaker]

You know, in all of American history, when the country has gone to war, the President has asked the American people to make sacrifices. There were all kinds of rationing and such during WW II, for example. This time when Bush started the War of Lies of Mass Destruction, not only did he not ask the people to make sacrifices, he also cut taxes, mostly for the very rich, at the same time. Not only insane, but criminally insane. If I have one bone to pick with the Obama administration, it's that they haven't prosecuted Bush, Cheney et al.

Rumple you are so on point and I couldn't agree with you more. Keep the wisdom rolling............

Bush should be made an example of, he's a fucking mass murderer. A fucking crooked cowboy with a crooked face, ugly beavis and butthead look alike. He has the fucking IQ of Oliver. I wonder what's holding Obama back from prosecuting him?

 

[daydreamer41]

The biggest difference between Reagan and the tea baggers is that Reagan loved his country while the tea baggers hate it. You have people running for President who want to dismantle the government.

There are a couple of ironies at work here:
First, those who most claim to being patriots, wave the flag around, and sing the loudest when God Bless America is played are those who most object to paying taxes. It`s been said that the true test of a civilized society is the extent to which a hand is held out to the neediest among us. The attitude of the tea baggers to those in need is: fuck you. A bunch of tea baggers applauded when Ron Paul suggested that a person who didn`t have health care could just die for all he cared.

Second, these people who object to any tax increase or letting the Bush tax cuts expire aren`t getting any benefit. Iggy and Daydreamer, unless they`re making over $1,000,000, aren`t benefitting from them. I write payroll every week for my employees all of whom earn between $29,000 and $80,000. When the Bush tax cuts went into effect, it was worth between $1 and $3 every week.

RUMPS FACT CHECK

Here we go again.

Rumps states that his employees, who were making $29,000 to $80,000 per year, were saving only $1 to $3 per week from the Bush tax cuts. Bullshit, Rumps. Why do you make this crap up? $1 per week is $52 per year. $3 per week is $156 per week. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when write crap like this, which is obviously not true.


Here`s an excerpt from an article about the Bush Tax cuts.

For the family of four bringing in a combined income of $75,000, the expiration of all Bush-era tax cuts will amount to a tax increase of $2,143 next year, according to the Tax Foundation`s 2011 Income Tax Calculator.
A family of four earning $150,000 would see its [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]income [COLOR=blue !important]tax[/COLOR][/COLOR] burden increase by $4,510 to $23,150, according to the Tax Foundation.
Single filers, meanwhile, would see their taxes rise by $605 at the $50,000 income plateau and by $1,355 at $75,000. A single filer earning $150,000, including $15,000 in long-term capital gains, would pay an extra $3,269, with a total tax liability of $28,340.
A single parent of one child earning $25,000 would see his tax liability rise by $955, decreasing his tax refund of $1,856 to just more than $900. A low-income family of five earning a total of $45,000 would see their taxes increase by $2,538, equating to a total tax liability of $1,028.
An upper-middle income family of four with two earners pulling in $150,000, including $15,000 in long-term capital gains, would see their taxes increase by $3,802. That family`s total tax burden? Roughly $21,600.
A high-income family of four, meanwhile, with a combined income of $300,000 and $20,000 in itemized deductions, would see their taxes jump by more than $11,000 if Congress allows all of the Bush-era tax cuts to expire. That equals a total tax liability of $68,392.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/11/expiration-bush-tax-cuts-affect/#ixzz1hOxbwefW[/COLOR]​

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Read more: http://[B]www.foxnews.com[/B]/politics/2010/10/11/expiration-bush-tax-cuts-affect/#ixzz1hOxbwefW[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Nothing like bullshit numbers from a bullshit "news" source. The flaw comes in by including "capital gains." What middle class family has capital gains? Take them out of the equation and you're back to the $1-$3 per week that the paychecks I wrote increased by.

How does bullshit taste when washed down with Kool Aid?

Thanks, by the way, for making my point. The Bush tax cuts, mostly capital gains, go to the rich and the rich only.

 

[daydreamer41]

ANYONE but the great "False hope" (barrack o') I really am just getting to learn about Jon Hunstman but i do know i would vote for him because Abby is Eleganza Material...... awwww hell, who we kidding, she could be the next great HDH Indy Montreal has ever seen! She gets my vote, errrrrrr, i mean her Dad does :thumb: GO Abby! i mean GO JON HUNSTMAN!

Skip to the 48 second mark and beyond (Abby is simply, Amazing!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wERnQNuwQbM&feature=relmfu

(GLG right back at ya, even tho ur a dummycrat, jk, i dont care what party you represent as long as the guy or girl running has hot daughters!)

Abby is really hot. All of Huntsman's daughters are hot. I like the name Abby. I've known a couple of Abby's, most of them were hot, a couple were not.

About Huntsman, he is not defining himself too well. There is not too much known about him. Huntsman was Governor of a low population state, Utah, and Ambassador to China. Romney is known because this is not the first time he has run. Perry is somewhat known because he is Governor of Texas. Gringrich is a good debater and is a good presenter of ideas. Whether he is the most credible of the candidates, I don't know.

Supposedly, Huntsman is a traditional Conservative, but I am not sure because he has not presented himself as such.

 

[daydreamer41]

Nothing like bullshit numbers from a bullshit "news" source. The flaw comes in by including "capital gains." What middle class family has capital gains? Take them out of the equation and you're back to the $1-$3 per week that the paychecks I wrote increased by.

How does bullshit taste when washed down with Kool Aid?

Thanks, by the way, for making my point. The Bush tax cuts, mostly capital gains, go to the rich and the rich only.

Rumps rule #1. Discredit the source. If it was CNN, would he say anything different? The tax break is $605 for a single filer who makes $50,000, not $2 per week like you said. Your source (yourself) is not credible. That's for sure.

Did you read the what I cut and pasted? No.

Capitial gains go to Middle Class taxpayer because many people invest in Mutual funds.

 

[simonpaul]

can we talk about the free trade with USA.It is almost impossible to ship parcels without problems.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Rumps rule #1. Discredit the source. If it was CNN, would he say anything different? The tax break is $605 for a single filer who makes $50,000, not $2 per week like you said. Your source (yourself) is not credible. That's for sure.

1. I didn't discredit the source. Fox has been discrediting themselves on nearly a minute by minute basis since they went on the air as the official propaganda arm of the Republican Party. You know who Roger Ailes is? You know where he came from. Case in point.

2. As for me as a source, yup. I wrote those paychecks and I saw how much they didn't go up.

Capitial gains go to Middle Class taxpayer because many people invest in Mutual funds.

Or rather they used to, before the banks foreclosed on them. None of the people who work for me have sold any investments. 99% of the capital gains go to the 1%.

 

[daydreamer41]

Why the Middle Class Obama Tax Cut is BS

The payroll tax supposedly pays for Social Security. Obama, being the great political hack that he is, dreamt up the deal of cutting the payroll tax from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. The 6.2 percent or 4.2 percent is the employee contribution. The employer pays the another 6.2 percent.

Whatever the government collects from this tax is drawn out by Senior citizens. Up until recently, the tax collected paid for people collecting Social Security. Now with the tax going down to 4.2 percent, even less money is going to pay the present Social Security bill. This adds more money to the US National Debt, which is $15.1 Trillion.

The problem plaguing European countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, and France is debt. They have disportionate debt to GDP.

Obama is leading the US in the same direction. He's added $5 Trillion of debt in 3 years, 1/3 of our current National debt.

Do people want Social Security like it currently is? If so, it has to be paid for. Obama is performing one of his political stunts at the cost of the future. He's a political piece of crap.

 

[daydreamer41]

1. I didn`t discredit the source. Fox has been discrediting themselves on nearly a minute by minute basis since they went on the air as the official propaganda arm of the Republican Party. You know who Roger Ailes is? You know where he came from. Case in point.

2. As for me as a source, yup. I wrote those paychecks and I saw how much they didn`t go up.


Or rather they used to, before the banks foreclosed on them. None of the people who work for me have sold any investments. 99% of the capital gains go to the 1%.

Here`s another source Rumps, bankrate.com who is quoting Deloitte and Touche as a Source. You want to do a review on them?

You as a source is so laughable. You are constantly making crap up without backing it up with facts.


http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/how-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-will-affect-you-3.aspx

Number crunching by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax LLP shows that if the current tax rates expire, a typical family of four with annual household income of $50,000 would pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011.
A single taxpayer earning $50,000 per year would, according to the Deloitte analysis, pay $1,100 more in taxes next year if the current tax laws lapse.
Potential tax bill scenarios by CCH, a tax software and publishing company in Riverwoods, Ill., come up with slightly different tax bill amounts, but reveal the same trend.
CCH analysis says that expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts would cause a married couple with two dependent children to owe $2,143 more next year.



Read more: How expiring Bush tax cuts will affect you http://www.bankrate.com/finance/tax...tax-cuts-will-affect-you-1.aspx#ixzz1hP7C6MdQ




And Capital Gains:


[h=2]Abstract[/h]Fewer than one in seven individual income taxpayers reported taxable capital gains in 2006. Over half of taxpayers with gains had incomes below $75,000, but most capital gains were reported by very high income taxpayers. The 3 percent of returns with AGI over $200,000 reported 31 percent of AGI and 83 percent of capital gains; the 0.3 percent with AGI over $1,000,000 reported 15 percent of AGI and 61 percent of capital gains. Many more Americans accrue capital gains on corporate shares they hold within tax-deferred employer-sponsored retirement plans, but they do not pay capital gains tax on these gains.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001201



While more wealthy people do get more Capital Gains from Stock, which is only logical, what you wrote --- 99% of the Capital gains is collected by the 1 percent --- is absolutely incorrect. Over half of the taxpayers with gains had incomes below $75,000. Wealthier people have more money and will have larger gains. But lack of large wealth does not stop people from investing. In fact, a person with a modest income can increase his or her wealth by investing small amounts over a long period of time.

---

​

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

A single taxpayer earning $50,000 per year would, according to the Deloitte analysis, pay $1,100 more in taxes next year if the current tax laws lapse.

Jeez, just last year, you tea baggers wanted to hang people making less than $40 K because they didn`t pay any taxes, now you twist numbers to have them raked over the coals. You know, if you ask yourself the right questions, you can prove most anything.

Again, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2002 or 2003, the checks I was writing every week went up by $1-3 for each employee. And that`s without manipulating anything.

 

[daydreamer41]

Jon Huntsman? He's barely polling at 2% now among Republican voters. Even though he's probably the sanest & most electable of the current crop of GOP knuckleheads, he doesn't stand a chance. Disappointing, i'll admit, since someone like Huntsman would gain some of the Democrat voters who dislike Obama. Maybe Mitt Romney could do lure such votes, but the problem with Romney is that half of the people in his own party hate him & will probably chose to stay home instead of voting for someone like him.

By the way, i have bad news. Abby Hunstman, the brunette, is married. Her full name is Abby Hunstman Livingston. However, the good news is that her gorgeous blond sister, Mary Anne, doesn't appear to be married. All three of them appeared together on CBS News & all three appear to be very intelligent. Abby appears to be the more brainy one of the three:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7386745n

You forget to mention the biggest knucklehead of them all --- the one currently in the White House. By the way, Doc, isn't that the same video that lggy posted? I swear I watched that video twice. Don't mind at all, as it was very easy on my eyes.

 

[Lovemaker]

. Gringrich is a good debater and is a good presenter of ideas. Whether he is the most credible of the candidates, I don't know.

If you even believe that Gingrich has an ounce of credibility then please do your nation a favor by not casting a vote on election night.

But maybe you're right, among the Republicans he may be the most credible lol.

 

[daydreamer41]

Jeez, just last year, you tea baggers wanted to hang people making less than $40 K because they didn`t pay any taxes, now you twist numbers to have them raked over the coals. You know, if you ask yourself the right questions, you can prove most anything.

Again, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2002 or 2003, the checks I was writing every week went up by $1-3 for each employee. And that`s without manipulating anything.

tea baggers (who are they?) wanted to do what? hang people? Sounds violent, Rumps. Is that the Occupy Wall Street crowd you are talking about? Your gang. They are the violent ones, not the Tea party.

I seriously doubt your claim of $1 to $3 per week. That figure you quote is withholding and I seriously doubt unless your employeres were underestimating there taxes, that it would be that low, especially at $80,000.

Single

Tax Year 2002[SUP][3][/SUP]	Tax Year 2003[SUP][4][/SUP]
up to $6,000	10%	up to $7,000	10%
$6,000 - $27,950	15%	$7,000 - $28,400	15%
$27,950 - $67,700	27%	$28,400 - $68,800	25%
$67,700 - $141,250	30%	$68,800 - $143,500	28%
$141,250 - $307,050	35%	$143,500 - $311,950	33%
over $307,050	38.6%	over $311,950	35%

Income levelTax rateIncome levelTax rate

[h=3][edit] Married filing jointly or qualifying widow or widower[/h]

Tax Year 2002[SUP][3][/SUP]	Tax Year 2003[SUP][4][/SUP]
up to $12,000	10%	up to $14,000	10%
$12,000 - $46,700	15%	$14,000 - $56,800	15%
$46,700 - $112,850	27%	$56,800 - $114,650	25%
$112,850 - $171,950	30%	$114,650 - $174,700	28%
$171,950 - $307,050	35%	$174,700 - $311,950	33%
over $307,050	38.6%	over $311,950	35%

Income levelTax rateIncome levelTax rate

 

[daydreamer41]

If you even believe that Gingrich has an ounce of credibility then please do your nation a favor by not casting a vote on election night.

But maybe you're right, among the Republicans he may be the most credible lol.

Haha Lovemaker, I'd vote for Gingrich over Obama any time, because of the damage the moron is doing to my nation and Gingrich is far more honest and credible than Obama (aka Jimmy Carter II).

 

[Lovemaker]

Deloitte and Touche

Deloitte and Touche are one of the big Five accounting firms along with EY, KPMG, PwC, and CIM.

They audit Bell Canada and many other major corporations. They are definitely a more credible source than Fox News lol.

Thanks for the Deloitte and Touche source:smile:

 

[Lovemaker]

Haha Lovemaker, I'd vote for Gingrich over Obama any time, because of the damage the moron is doing to my nation and Gingrich is far more honest and credible than Obama (aka Jimmy Carter II).

Hypothetically speaking, would you vote for Bush or Obama? One answer only, please.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

tea baggers (who are they?) wanted to do what? hang people? Sounds violent, Rumps. Is that the Occupy Wall Street crowd you are talking about? Your gang. They are the violent ones, not the Tea party.

What planet do you live on? Who brought guns to demonstrations? Your tea bagging friends. Who brought signs indicating violent intent. Your tea bagging friends.

I'm done with you know. Back to the ignore list. There's not a hint of anything rational to anything you say.

The occupy people, violent. LOL. Maybe in your bizarro world, but surely not this one.

 

[daydreamer41]

What planet do you live on? Who brought guns to demonstrations? Your tea bagging friends. Who brought signs indicating violent intent. Your tea bagging friends.

I'm done with you know. Back to the ignore list. There's not a hint of anything rational to anything you say.

The occupy people, violent. LOL. Maybe in your bizarro world, but surely not this one.

Really, Rumps? How many tea party (use the correct term) members have been arrested for violence or disorderly conduct? None.

How many tea party members have been arrested for assaulting police officers? None.

What signs were violent, Rumps?

How many Occupy Wall Streeters and Occupy whatever have been arrested? Thousands.

How many OWS spewed anti-Semetic crap Rumps? Lots.

It's your Bizzaro world Rumps. You are king of it.

Everything I say is rational.