And this very confusing to me. He’s spent the last 2+ years saying that the Bush tax cuts were bad for the economy and that only the rich got the tax cuts. Now he says if we dont extend the tax cuts it will be bad for the economy and that without them the middle class will pay more taxes.
How can this be? 
It was a compromise. Pres Obama never had a problem with the tax cuts for most people. He was concerned about the tax cuts for the wealthy.
I am still waiting for the obese horde to start the revolution whilst chomping kfc, watching portable dvd players, texting each other and shopping online…
Oh wait, that’s WHY there is an obese horde and that’s also WHY said horde will do exactly nothing about it’s plight except perhaps cry when it comes their turn to lose their head?
Oh America…where have you gone? What is this falseness beneath us now? 
Compromise or not, he changed his tune. He wanted to keep the tax cuts for the middle class, yet he and the Democrats have been saying over and over that only the rich got the tax cuts in the first place. Which one is true?
And those same people also said the Bush tax cuts were a disaster on the economy. And then Obama said we must keep them to help the economy. So, was he lying or just ignorant about economics? It has to be one or the other.
This of course begs the question: If Bush’s tax policies were so bad, why is Obama saying we must keep them in place?
President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits, have the new START treaty ratified, have Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed, have a vote on the DREAM Act, etc…
So maybe it had something to do with this:
Senate GOP pledges to block all bills until tax dispute resolved
Again, it had ZERO to do with compromise. He wasn’t saying, ‘Well the Bush tax cuts were bad, but I have to keep them to get my other legislation passed’. He was out there rallying to keep Bush’s tax cuts and trying to persuade DEMOCRATS to vote for them.
He didn’t have to compromise with the GOP, the Democrats still control both Houses of Congress.
I’m still waiting for you guys to answer my question of why he flip-flopped on Bush’s tax cuts. One minute they were bad for the economy, the next minute they were good for the economy. I have the quotes, do I need to post them?
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1067739]And this very confusing to me. He’s spent the last 2+ years saying that the Bush tax cuts were bad for the economy and that only the rich got the tax cuts. Now he says if we dont extend the tax cuts it will be bad for the economy and that without them the middle class will pay more taxes.
How can this be? [/QUOTE]
are you gonna start talking trash about how he caved now??? like, when you dont get your way, he’s bad for the country, when you do get your way youre gonna slag on him for that too?
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1067920]Again, it had ZERO to do with compromise. He wasn’t saying, ‘Well the Bush tax cuts were bad, but I have to keep them to get my other legislation passed’. He was out there rallying to keep Bush’s tax cuts and trying to persuade DEMOCRATS to vote for them.
He didn’t have to compromise with the GOP, the Democrats still control both Houses of Congress.
I’m still waiting for you guys to answer my question of why he flip-flopped on Bush’s tax cuts. One minute they were bad for the economy, the next minute they were good for the economy. I have the quotes, do I need to post them?[/QUOTE]
you really arent capable of seeing the other side of the coin are you??? i see your point, but i see the other side too… its politics, its nature is to act righteous and point out fault in all political “enemies”…
you know, its really sad how you will scrutinize one side so much more than the other… both sides play politics, yet you only really seem offended by the parts you just happen to disagree with… you cant see past your bias and it makes you irrelevant… im not even really willing to argue with you anymore, im happy to just do a few type-by’s… the more you type, the more i see how lost you really are in the thick of all the rhettoric… its sad, you should use your mind for something that is real… your politics are a joke son…
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1067920]Again, it had ZERO to do with compromise. He wasn’t saying, ‘Well the Bush tax cuts were bad, but I have to keep them to get my other legislation passed’. He was out there rallying to keep Bush’s tax cuts and trying to persuade DEMOCRATS to vote for them.
He didn’t have to compromise with the GOP, the Democrats still control both Houses of Congress.
I’m still waiting for you guys to answer my question of why he flip-flopped on Bush’s tax cuts. One minute they were bad for the economy, the next minute they were good for the economy. I have the quotes, do I need to post them?[/QUOTE]
Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand. Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent – that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved – that was a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.
So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.
…
And that means because it’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise.
…
Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal. This country was founded on compromise. I couldn’t go through the front door at this country’s founding. And if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a union.
It certainly seems that President Obama views it as a compromise.
[QUOTE=Syn7;1067938]you really arent capable of seeing the other side of the coin are you??? i see your point, but i see the other side too… its politics, its nature is to act righteous and point out fault in all political “enemies”…
you know, its really sad how you will scrutinize one side so much more than the other… both sides play politics, yet you only really seem offended by the parts you just happen to disagree with… you cant see past your bias and it makes you irrelevant… im not even really willing to argue with you anymore, im happy to just do a few type-by’s… the more you type, the more i see how lost you really are in the thick of all the rhettoric… its sad, you should use your mind for something that is real… your politics are a joke son…[/QUOTE]
I find this interesting…
[QUOTE=1bad65;1024804]Here is Obama saying “you dont raise taxes in a recession”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrozt_vuJdE
On Jan 1st capital gains taxes go up and the Bush tax cuts (which include the middle class) are set to expire.
Will Obama be breaking another campaign promise, or will he keep his word?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=1bad65;1025075]Fyi, the lowest income tax bracket (of those who actually pay taxes) is 10%. On January 1st, the lowest bracket becomes 15%. So Obama will be raising income taxes by 50% on the poorest American taxpayers.
Unless he actually keeps his word.[/QUOTE]
If President Obama doesn’t extend the tax cuts, he’s a bad guy. If he does, he’s a bad guy. A least Bad-BJJ’s Obama Derangement Syndrome is consistent. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Syn7;1067933]are you gonna start talking trash about how he caved now??? like, when you dont get your way, he’s bad for the country, when you do get your way youre gonna slag on him for that too?[/QUOTE]
Do what?!?!
I’m glad he did the right thing, which is not raising taxes on anyone. Again, I’m not saying he “caved”, I just want to know why his tune about the Bush tax changed.
[QUOTE=Syn7;1067938]you really arent capable of seeing the other side of the coin are you??? i see your point, but i see the other side too… its politics, its nature is to act righteous and point out fault in all political “enemies”…
you know, its really sad how you will scrutinize one side so much more than the other… both sides play politics, yet you only really seem offended by the parts you just happen to disagree with… you cant see past your bias and it makes you irrelevant… im not even really willing to argue with you anymore, im happy to just do a few type-by’s… the more you type, the more i see how lost you really are in the thick of all the rhettoric… its sad, you should use your mind for something that is real… your politics are a joke son…[/QUOTE]
Of course I can see other side. They wanted to either raise taxes on everyone or just the rich. Both are bad ideas. You don’t raise taxes during a recession, and you darn sure dont do it on the job producers, ie the rich.
And I often disagree with the Democrats. Alot of them are socialists. And alot of them are dangerous. Pelosi actually said we have to vote ‘Yes’ on Obamacare to see whats in it?!?! How can anyone not agree that that is horrible policy?
As to bias, anyone with their own ideals is biased. Call it rhetoric or whatever, but it’s MY thoughts, my positions, my ideas. If I happen to share them with certain elected officials, it doesn’t mean I’m a parrot, it just means I’m lucky enough to have representatives who agree with me. How is that a joke?
And of course I’m going to be offended by the parts I disagree with. Who in the world does that part not fit?
[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1067948]I find this interesting…
If President Obama doesn’t extend the tax cuts, he’s a bad guy. If he does, he’s a bad guy. A least Bad-BJJ’s Obama Derangement Syndrome is consistent. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
You’re still not getting it. I want to know why his tune on the Bush tax cuts changed. Not his position on them, but his thoughts on them.
Here is what I’m talking/asking about:
"NEW YORK – Over the past three months, Obama described the Bush-era program that he’s now adopting as his own as “tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires” no fewer than 50 times, according to a review of his stump speeches, weekly addresses, and comments to campaign donors and members of the news media.
The rhetoric was deliberate: Obama was trying to cast Republicans as the party of the wealthy while his fellow Democrats represented the middle class.
He used that rhetoric at campaign events across the country, from Los Angeles and Las Vegas to Des Moines, Iowa, and Richmond, Virginia.
During at least three pre-election rallies, Obama, playing to crowds filled with die-hard supporters, railed against the tax cuts for the wealthy, eliciting rounds of boos from the audience, according to White House transcripts.
[B]Obama repeated the “millionaires and billionaires” line once again on Monday in announcing the deal, but with a slight twist: Rather than rejecting Republicans’ call for a full extension of the tax cuts, he simply expressed opposition to their demand of making it permanent.
Obama didn’t make that distinction on the campaign trail.[/B]
But in addition to the class-warfare rhetoric, Obama described the tax cuts as unaffordable and ultimately ineffective.
On Sept. 25, during his weekly radio address Obama referred to the initiative as “tax breaks we cannot afford.”
A few days later, during an event the White House billed as a “backyard discussion” at the home of a family in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Obama said the nation would “have to borrow the $700 billion” – the estimated cost of the cuts over 10 years – “from China or the Saudis or whoever is buying our debt, and then we’d pass off on average [a] $100,000 check to people who are making a million dollars, up to more than a billion dollars.”
Obama wanted to make sure that his audience understood that either the U.S.'s main rival for decades to come would be financing the tax cut, or the nation that sells the U.S. most of its oil. He used the reference to China and Saudi Arabia a few times.
And while Republicans and some Democrats have claimed that no one – even the wealthy – should have their taxes raised during a recession because that could stunt the recovery, Obama cast aside those fears, arguing on Sept. 29 that “98 percent of Americans wouldn’t see any benefit from it.”
On Monday, the White House tone towards the tax cuts changed from hostility to acceptance. On a conference call with reporters, senior administration officials declined to explain why.
If passed by Congress, the tax initiative would expire in two years. The Federal Reserve forecasts the unemployment rate to hover around 8 percent at the end of 2012. Prior to the current recession, unemployment hadn’t reached the 8 percent level since January 1984. There have been two recessions since then: 1990-91 and 2001.
It’s unclear how the White House will be able to let the tax cuts lapse with 8 percent unemployment. Senior administration officials declined to comment when asked."
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/obama-bush-tax-cuts-video_n_793123.html
[QUOTE=BJJ-Blue;1067961]And of course I’m going to be offended by the parts I disagree with. Who in the world does that part not fit?[/QUOTE]
me… lots of people… you just arent capable of seeing it… your democrat counterpart is just as much of a joke…
it reminds me of the time a told this cat that i didnt feel any elected official represented me… he says "oh well then you must be either too socialist or too conservative… he didnt understand me at all… and this was even after a long talk about politics… he saw, as you do, the political spactrum as a a line… for me its more like a sphere… calling one end right or left is rediculous… because there is no end.. no start… no line between any thought… and you may yet claim to understand what im saying, but you really dont… and thats very cleqr from reading your posts… you are linear, finite, boxed in, you even believe you have representatives… nuh uh son, they have you…
[QUOTE=Syn7;1067974]he saw, as you do, the political spactrum as a a line… for me its more like a sphere… calling one end right or left is rediculous… because there is no end.. no start… no line between any thought… and you may yet claim to understand what im saying, but you really dont… and thats very cleqr from reading your posts… you are linear, finite, boxed in, you even believe you have representatives… nuh uh son, they have you…[/QUOTE]
How do you know what I think without asking me? Do you have the same ‘gift’ as Jamieson in regards to that? :rolleyes:
I’ve seen the spherical spectrum, and it is quite accurate. However, I don’t discuss it much because most people I’ve talked with are actually unaware of it.
As to the linear one, I’ve actually discussed it before. I do so again for you, as you likely missed it. It was awhile back.
I do NOT believe in this one:
Socialism Fascism
Communism ---------------------------------------------------------- National Socialism
Marxism
I do believe in this one:
Anarchy----------------------------------------------------------------- Total Gov’t Control
And by total Gov’t control I mean Socialism, Communism, National Socialism, Fascism, etc are on the SAME side. To me the spectrum I believe in is simple, it’s completely based on individual rights, not the traditional ‘Left’ vs ‘Right’ spectrum.
[QUOTE=Syn7;1067974]calling one end right or left is rediculous… because there is no end.. no start… no line between any thought…[/QUOTE]
I actually had it explained a different way (although yours is accurate as well). The guy asked where on a traditional Left vs Right spectrum does Anarchy fall? Where does a monarchy fall? Where does a direct democracy fall? Since the traditional Left vs Right spectrum did not allow for those philosophies to ‘fit’ (as well as other examples), it cannot be accurate.
[QUOTE=Syn7;1067974] and you may yet claim to understand what im saying, but you really dont… and thats very cleqr from reading your posts… you are linear, finite, boxed in, you even believe you have representatives… nuh uh son, they have you…[/QUOTE]
So, do you still think I don’t understand that concept, or do you admit you were mistaken about that?
It’s been really weird watching your nation commit suicide over the last 12 years.
-Giving a huge chunk your jobs to other countries.
-Letting your financiers fail the whole world.
-Dividing yourselves politically and ideologically instead of unifying under your original constitution and bill of rights.
-Allowing gross misinterpretations to take the limelight and be presented as one half of the divide.
-Letting ideologues run the show so that divide stays in place.
If you keep it up, you won’t have a nation at all. Just a bunch of severely weakened city states that frankly, China and India will destroy and in the meantime all t he wall street fat cats are setting up shop in Bangladesh and Beijing.
dont worry, we’ll be stealing someones lunch money pretty soon.
[QUOTE=Bad-BJJ;1067965]You’re still not getting it. I want to know why his tune on the Bush tax cuts changed. Not his position on them, but his thoughts on them.[/QUOTE]
Well then, why don’t you send a letter to the White House and see if President Obama answers you? Because no one here can tell you what his “thoughts” are. As I see it, the only reason you started this thread was to criticize President Obama for doing the very thing you said he had to do.
“Will Obama be breaking another campaign promise, or will he keep his word?”
“Unless he actually keeps his word.”
Your words. I guess he kept his word, didn’t he? Nevertheless, you’ll find any reason to criticize him, even when he does something you wanted him to do.
[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1068083]Because no one here can tell you what his “thoughts” are. [/QUOTE]
Dude, I used his words on the subject! And I even posted his words for all to see. So of course when he discusses the issue, we know what his thoughts on said issue is. Unless, of course, he is lying.
[QUOTE=Reality_Check;1068083]Your words. I guess he kept his word, didn’t he? Nevertheless, you’ll find any reason to criticize him, even when he does something you wanted him to do.[/QUOTE]
It’s hard to keep your word when it keeps changing. First it was ‘You dont raise taxes in a recession’. Then it was, ‘Lets raise taxes on the rich, but no one else’. Then it was, ‘We wont raise anyones taxes, but just for two years’.
Again, not raising taxes was the right thing to do. However, making the tax cuts permanent would have been ideal. Of course he only agreed to not raise taxes after he had said he was going to raise taxes, but only on “the rich”. So let’s be honest here, it was not like keeping the Bush tax cuts was his original intention. If you’re coerced/forced/etc into doing the right thing, it’s a little different than doing the right thing all on your own.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1068063]It’s been really weird watching your nation commit suicide over the last 12 years.
-Giving a huge chunk your jobs to other countries.
-Letting your financiers fail the whole world.
-Dividing yourselves politically and ideologically instead of unifying under your original constitution and bill of rights.
-Allowing gross misinterpretations to take the limelight and be presented as one half of the divide.
-Letting ideologues run the show so that divide stays in place.
If you keep it up, you won’t have a nation at all. Just a bunch of severely weakened city states that frankly, China and India will destroy and in the meantime all t he wall street fat cats are setting up shop in Bangladesh and Beijing.[/QUOTE]
We’re in a recovery right now. China, on the other hand, has already admitted its economic bubble is about to burst.
You can say all you want about the US, because unlike Canada, we are still the most powerful nation in the world, and our political divide is a representation that at least we still have a choice as to what we believe is best for the nation. The Republicans gaining a good chunk of congress was the best thing to ever happen, because now everyone has to compromise, instead of a single political ideology running the show.
The fact that everyone in Canada is talking about what is happening in the US is a clear indicator that your system is stagnant and dull. You don’t hear Americans talking about your system, because on a global level, you are pretty much irrelevant.
Oh, and our stocks are at their highest in two years.
References are as follows:
China’s econic problems: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-03/china-s-economy-to-slow-may-crash-in-next-nine-months-marc-faber-says.html
Our recovery: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-18/leading-indicators-index-in-u-s-climbs-0-5-as-fed-prepares-easing-moves.html
Canada being stagnant: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2010/30/c6438.html
So yeah… back up your **** or STFU 