ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Obama Reminiscing about Hope and Change (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=262647)

Iowanian 09-05-2012 07:23 PM

Well by that logic, if Romney will run the economy with the results of Bush, we'd be in HALF as much additional debt as we would with a repeat of Hopera at the wheel of the USS Titanic.

Bootlegged 09-05-2012 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qabbaan (Post 8881437)
I don't think he is Debbie herself, but I think he might compulsively wax his carrot when he sees her on TV.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uzylMpPC3PQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

chiefzilla1501 09-05-2012 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 8881455)
I think Romey's plan will make the deficit worse than Obama's plan. We can not sustain those tax cuts for the higher income brackets and lower taxes in other parts of the tax code and magically think its going to create more revenue than the tax cut cost.

Like any cost benefit analysis, you have to make assumptions about growth. And our federal entitlement structure is so messed up you have to incur cost to create long term benefit. For example, social security is broken, but you can't deny access to old people who paid into it. I despise that I'm young and have to pay into social security ill never see.

I'm not a fan of trickle down economics. And I agree, I hate that tax cuts and refusal to tax the upper class are off the table. I think those are stupid party policies. But I think those are much bigger issues than inability to address massively escalating entitlement costs. After all... Lower taxes is a simple fix. In the future, raise taxes. Entitlements on the other hand... Those won't be reformed unless somebody takes a bold step.

Baby Lee 09-05-2012 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bootlegged (Post 8881574)
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uzylMpPC3PQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now THAT is how you lie!!

None of that weak sauce RNC invisible dog whistles that are supposed to go off if you even mention Welfare, or shitty implied overstatement of possible responsibility when an auto plant you vouch for running another 100 years closes its doors.

BigRedChief 09-05-2012 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 8881597)
Like any cost benefit analysis, you have to make assumptions about growth. And our federal entitlement structure is so messed up you have to incur cost to create long term benefit. For example, social security is broken, but you can't deny access to old people who paid into it. I despise that I'm young and have to pay into social security ill never see.

I'm not a fan of trickle down economics. And I agree, I hate that tax cuts and refusal to tax the upper class are off the table. I think those are stupid party policies. But I think those are much bigger issues than inability to address massively escalating entitlement costs. After all... Lower taxes is a simple fix. In the future, raise taxes. Entitlements on the other hand... Those won't be reformed unless somebody takes a bold step.

I disagree. If the reports are true, the "grand bargain" between Bohner and Obama, Obama put entitlemnet cuts on the table in exchange for taxing the rich.

Dems arnt blind. Entitlments have to be reformed and curtailed but no ****ing way will I ever be in favor of that without the rich going back to the tax rate under Clinton. Thats not too much of a burden to bear.

Dayze 09-05-2012 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian (Post 8880287)
Voting for Obama a 2nd time is like saying we should pump the Exxon Valdez full of crude and ramming it into an Alaskan rock ledge because the sea birds are getting too healthy.

:p
Holy shit. Gold. Gold Jerry!

patteeu 09-05-2012 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 8881178)
OMG, WTF patteau? Try to revise history much?

If that prescription drug program wasnt "big spending" just what the hell is "big spending"?

You misinterpreted me. I'm saying that some of Bush's policies are actually what we need now (far better than what Obama and the dems have in mind). It's just that we need to weed out the big spending from Bush and we sure as hell don't need the ultra big spending on non-growth programs that we got from Obama.

patteeu 09-05-2012 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 8881314)
But, thats history. Now WTF are we going to do? We have a choice again.

Have you seen the BS #'s in Ryans budget? That budget will explode the deficit and run up trillions of more $'s in debt.

There has to be a different path that tax cuts wieghed heavily in favor of the rich. Surely, that not the best idea out there to get us out of this mess?

Have you even bothered to look at Obama's budget proposals where he ignores entitlements completely?

The Bush tax cuts were across the board tax cuts, not tax cuts "weighted heavily in favor of the rich". JFC, the poor barely pay taxes. How are we supposed to cut their taxes as much as we cut the taxes of real taxpayers? Are you serious about addressing the economy and the deficit/entitlement time bomb or are you more concerned with increasing the progressivity of the tax code?

patteeu 09-05-2012 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 8881690)
I disagree. If the reports are true, the "grand bargain" between Bohner and Obama, Obama put entitlemnet cuts on the table in exchange for taxing the rich.

Dems arnt blind. Entitlments have to be reformed and curtailed but no ****ing way will I ever be in favor of that without the rich going back to the tax rate under Clinton. Thats not too much of a burden to bear.

Why Clinton? Why not Carter or JFK? What's so magical about the tax rates under Clinton? And are you going to insist that everyone else's rates go back to what they were under Clinton too?

Comrade Crapski 09-05-2012 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian (Post 8881505)
Voting for Obama for a 2nd term is like sending your child to the Summer camp Sandusky is holding in his prison cell.

LMAO

nstygma 09-06-2012 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 8881690)
...without the rich going back to the tax rate under Clinton. Thats not too much of a burden to bear.

at the end of clinton, the top 10% paid 65% of all federal income tax. in 09, they paid 70% of the total. is that because more people are broke and the bottom 90% is growing? i would think the government should focus on creating more rich people to tax(that's who makes people rich, after all) than to tax any of the current batch into stagnation.

Iowanian 09-06-2012 09:47 AM

Voting for Obama is like sending your sexy, young, naive 19 year old daughter to intern with Bill Clinton on a tropical island with no adult supervision...in a miniskirt....at a viagra convention.

BigRedChief 09-06-2012 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 8882335)
Why Clinton? Why not Carter or JFK? What's so magical about the tax rates under Clinton? And are you going to insist that everyone else's rates go back to what they were under Clinton too?

no, 3% is doable. I'd like to see them rolled back to where they were under the R's hero, Regan.

patteeu 09-06-2012 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 8884292)
no, 3% is doable. I'd like to see them rolled back to where they were under the R's hero, Regan.

:facepalm: The Reagan rates were a package deal. He wouldn't have supported the high top rate you're advocating combined with the breaks he agreed to give low income groups. Don't invoke Reagan unless you're actually advocating something he would have supported. Don't be BEP.

BigRedChief 09-06-2012 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 8884434)
:facepalm: The Reagan rates were a package deal. He wouldn't have supported the high top rate you're advocating combined with the breaks he agreed to give low income groups. Don't invoke Reagan unless you're actually advocating something he would have supported. Don't be BEP.

So now you have a exclusive on what the dead guy would have done?

How do you know? He raised taxes how many times? How many times did he compromise?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.