44 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
He should have said ...
that Obama's policies are better for the "to African Americans, Latinos and young people" than his own ones (in the short term at least, and in their own view). Then you shouldn't be amazed they don't vote on you.
So the message to the GOP is clear: find a way to convince those groups to vote for them in 2016.
You mean, he should have
been promising them 'stuff' that working taxpayers should pick up the tab for?
I didn't say anything about what Romney should have done. I only gave a well-meant advice to the Republicans for the future.
And surely I'm not the only one saying so. Just google GOP DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEM.
Let me say it like this: if millionaires are a minority (and I think they are), promising them to continue their tax cuts isn't the most effictive strategy to get the majority of the votes.
Can that "well meant advice" include real honesty
or is perception more important? When an athlete finds himself losing to those using performance enhancing drugs, what are his options if he wants to remain competitive?...and I'll add to that,...not seem like a crybaby?
demonizing that minority of millionaires and saying that not only taking away their deductions AND raising their tax rate (which amounts to closer to a 50% tax rate instead of the 39% BO campaigned on) will actually reduce the deficit is ok to do, even knowing that not only will it not make a dent in the deficit but it will only give the Dems more money to 'invest/spend' because every person with a brain (and not all of those people who voted has one) knows that Dems don't cut spending and only see 'new found money' as more to spend. And on top of all of that, millionaires aren't even part of the tax increase equation anymore because, again, anybody with a brain knows that people earning $250K aren't millionaires by any stretch of the imagination. So increasing tax rates and taking away deductions from anybody earning $250K to a 50% tax rate is even ok because when you don't have a lot of millionaires anymore to take from you lower the base substantially to collect even more revenue and hope people with a brain don't figure out that you aren't talking about millionaires anymore.
And then you add in the additional tax hike on capital gains (houses sold or investments like stock portfolios) and dividends (savings accounts, insurance policies, etc) you are hitting the middle class even harder than Dems will admit to. The very people who lost their shirts in 2008 are again going to take a massive hit just as they are perhaps beginning to rebuild.
And the additional tax increase for the death tax to 55% on estates that have been in families for years.......such as the family restaurant or bakery or dry cleaners, etc.......forcing the next generation to reduce their payroll by laying people off in order to pay down that new additional tax or even close their doors for good or try to find a bank that will let them take out a new mortgage on that business (good luck with that one).
And I guarantee you that not one red cent of those new revenues will find its way to the annual deficit.....it will be used by Dems as new found money and spent on new stuff and we'll never see daylight, things will stay the same as it is now......slow to no recovery at all, and higher unemployment, and more people getting foodstamps and other stuff.
Apparently you cant balance a check book.
Your incoming money has to equal your outgoing expenditures. Thanks to Georgie Boy Government Receipts are about 4% less than Expenditures. That's the Bush Deficits added to the Bush Crash requiring Government Money which saved an awful lot of very wealthy @$$es.
There is no alternative to reorganizing the taxation system to generate annual surplusses as Clinton did if you recall. and the Reagan Bush1 deficits were being slowly paid down until Bush 1 and a quarter oppened the till and said "Help yourself" to the top 1%. And there's no use complaining, that's exactly what the statistical analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts reveals.
And the only "gift" I can recall was the Dream Act, which doesn't involve any money directly.
BUSH IS TO BLAME!
Goose stepping with Obamatrons.
Georgie Boy (of whom I am no fan) has been gone for 4 years. When does the imposter-in-chief step up to the plate and quit blaming someone else. It's always someone else's fault. Anyone dealing with him better realize they are disposable because of circumstances arise that need a sacrificial scapegoat come along - out you go.
Being tough on millionaires will mean more jobs going overseas. Already we have many offshore businesses that manufacture goods and when they are imported for sale here in the US they don't even have to pay taxes on the imports.
I think the kinds of people (selfish people) who vote for obama because they got a phone or food stamps are going to have to learn the hard way that all handouts come with a price tag. Also we should educate the public that Lifeline Phone Service was implemented by the FCC in 1984 and so it is a government sponsored/mandated program that no previous president has ever had the audacity to take credit for.
Obama really sucks, he's a user who accepts false glory by the sacrifices of others and I got nothing but contempt for the guy. All politicians are crooks but he takes it to a whole new level.
You do realize there isn't a country on the planet
that controls it's own destiny now don't you?
Is this about the.....
The Rotschilds? The ILLUMINATI? Trilateral Commision? Outer Space Aliens? Some other group?
None of the above
RE: more people getting foodstamps
You have a problem with people getting foodstamps?
You said (in the short term....) so such may not
be the case in the longer term. I'd need to ask what you think a president should do. Should a president formulate policy that has enduring strength or only be concerned about keeping people happy for today? As well, should a president's policies target selected groups for special treatment? One of Obama's loudest proclamations during his first campaign was that lobbyists and special interest groups would not affect his policies. If you were here in the US, you'd also see that his greater focus on the mentioned groups came near the end of his term. I suppose he wanted those special interest groups to not allow time to cause them to forget what he'd done for them. He wanted those favors to be fresh in their minds when they went to the polls. Timing is everything and Obama played the clock superbly. His early promises to ignore special interest groups were largely forgotten while his later favors to them were remembered. What a genius...and what a genius of a whopper teller.
Criticized?...of course he will be.
But by his own party?
LAS VEGAS - A leading Republican governor sharply rebuked Mitt Romney for his view that President Obama owed his reelection to "gifts" his administration gave to various demographic groups, saying the sentiment was not representative of what the Republican Party believes.
At a post-election gathering of the Republican Governors Assn., Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Romney's comments just hours earlier in a conference call with top donors were "absolutely wrong."
"We have got to stop dividing the American voters," Jindal, the RGA's incoming chairman, told reporters here. "If we're going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage, and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly. One, we are fighting for 100% of the votes. And second, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream, period."
And all the heat
BO took after the first debate from HIS own party and the LSM (MSNBC thrill up his leg meltdown)?
It was billed as The First Debate,
Obama referred to it as "A Head Start".
Obama gave Romney just enough of a Head Start to make the election close...he didn't want to humiliate Romney, contrary to the believe of some that he wanted to "Kill Romney".
What a shame...I feel your pain, but not for long.
He didn't want to
humiliate Romney so he accused him of murder and being a felon instead? You're an idiot.
RE: You're an idiot.
4 MORE YEARS!!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!! 4 MORE YEARS!!!!
Some people can't handle the truth and people giving are "sharp rebukes" for the truth need to be taken to task for their mistaken beliefs.
As just one example of a "gift" from which Obama profited were the cell phones. That program has been around since 1984 and it has nothing to do with the president. The FCC set it up in 1984 and no other president has claimed credit but like the opportunist he is he's glad to take credit.
Obama reminds me of Eddie Haskell, Wally Cleaver's ingratiating friend who was always sucking up to Mrs. Cleaver. He's unreliable and sneaky but Mrs. Cleaver saw through his act too bad dumbed down voters can't.
Calling people out for correctly stating that Obama profited from giving gifts is no different than calling people racists who have a problem with his policies. Any problem with Obama's activities gets translated as an unfair biased opinion. Obama needs to be accountable and people need to stop making excuses.
RE: and no other president has claimed credit
and no other president has claimed credit but like the opportunist he is he's glad to take credit.
It depends on which side of the fence you're on, how you perceive things.
We have some here that BLAME him for that, they don't give him credit.
About blame and/or credit
In reality, good leaders aren't measured best by what they do but by what they can inspire and/or enable others to do. They learn to accept blame when things go wrong but pass along credit to others when things go right.
He was a lousy candidate
His own party was, at best, lukewarm about him. He lost to an incumbent president during a sluggish economy. That isn't historically easy to do.
The nominee of the "party of personal responsibility" should stop blaming others for his loss. "47%," "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," the Jeep ad, Romney shot himself in the foot at least a dozen times. Never mind that a lot of people just didn't trust him.
That sums it up nicely
Also, all you crazy teabaggers, please give Benghazi a rest already.
Give Benghazi a rest?
Are you actually saying we should just forget that this prez and his administration killed four Americans, including an Ambassador that BO appointed personally?
He does that to his friends
Imagine what he would do if you were his enemy.
OK, instead of giving it a rest....
.....how about "stop with the feigned outrage over the loss of four people in an unstable country when you seem a lot less outraged over the 7,000 American lives lost during the Bush Administration."
Feigned outrage? Obviously you feel no outrage over the tragic and senseless loss of life but please don't assume that people with a heart "feign" outrage. Empathy and outrage are very real emotions you seem out of touch with unless its outrage that Obama might quit getting a free ride and be accountable.
Hey, Obama got Khadafi!
We had to pay for it with only one ambassador. All hail Obama.
We had to pay for it with only one ambassador.
HE is included in WE.....WAY MORE than YOU are included in WE.
got too much we we?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)