Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: I have never heard so much BS............

  1. #1
    Senior Member Qtec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,962

    I have never heard so much BS............

    Krauthammer To Hannity: Obama Has Successfully Created ‘An Internal Civil War’ Within The GOP
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/krauthamm...ithin-the-gop/

    LOL The GOP is in chaos and its all because of the incompetent, lazy Obama!?

    “He’s been using this, and I must say with great skill–-and ruthless skill and success–to fracture and basically shatter the Republican opposition… His objective from the very beginning was to break the will of the Republicans in the House, and to create an internal civil war. And he’s done that.”
    ???????????????

    Q
    Remarkable.You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean,that's a remarkable thing to do



  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Qtec View Post
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/krauthamm...ithin-the-gop/

    LOL The GOP is in chaos and its all because of the incompetent, lazy Obama!?



    ???????????????

    Q
    Yes, and if only Obama had not launched two wars, one of them on lies, cut taxes while running up unprecedented debts, signed a big giveaway for the big pharma industry, blocking our ability to shop prive, handed out no bid contracts making his and Cheney's corporate cronies billions, borrowed more than all previouc administrations, combined, and ignored all of the warnings about the coming attack on 9/11, Katrina, and the coming crash on Wall St., while Greenspan covered up for the corrupt banking industry which created the crash, folamed the R.E. bobble with unjsitifiably low interest rates, we wouldn't be in this mess!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    Well, maybe that isn't totally wrong.

    The obdurate obstruction of the GOP has been a major problem for Obama and the country, preventing addressing dire needs with appropriate legislative actions.

    We know, most of us, that O's alleged negotiating style gave us heartburn or worse. It seemed he didn't know how to negotiate, immediately compromising with himself before he got to the table with them, and apparently getting far worse outcomes than he could have. (Leading plenty, especially on the pro-Hillary left, to claim he was doing it all on purpose, as a Trojan Horse from the right to bamboozle the Democrats.)

    So, now it's true that he's simply allowing the on-rushing calendar deadlines do his work for him, and not negotiating overly much. Enough to say he's tried some things, but not giving away the store as he used to do routinely in such situations. It's left many of the GOP trembling in fear, itching to bolt to the safety exit of compromise, with the leadership needing to figuratively crack whips, or have the trustees load a round into the riot control shotguns and shoot a round into the air, to stop the panicked riot of an exit.

    So, yeah, this SITUATION (somewhat, probably mainly the makings of the geniuses in the GOP) has done what Krauthammer says is going on (shattering the GOP's consensus). Obama's part seems less overt, less active, and more by acts of omission, now that he's not prematurely caving or starting a negotiation with his own bottom line. And signalling his new-found spine.

    An ideologue like Dr. K would be loathe to describe the incoherence of the GOP policies that led to this situation, so it's the evil mastermind villain of the piece who's said to be responsible.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    Yes, but, obama's policys are rubbish, they are little better than a placebo, no real medicine in there at all.
    And he hazta do a deal with a snake who iz pedalling poizon.
    The patient shood be very scared, 2013 aint gonnabe a good year in the usofa.
    mac.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Qtec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,962
    Obama's part seems less overt, less active, and more by acts of omission, now that he's not prematurely caving or starting a negotiation with his own bottom line. And signalling his new-found spine.

    An ideologue like Dr. K would be loathe to describe the incoherence of the GOP policies that led to this situation, so it's the evil mastermind villain of the piece who's said to be responsible.
    Well said and I agree, although I don't know about the spine.

    The 50 or so Tea Party special interest mob has no intention with working with democrats. They are the ones out of control who are forcing the extreme legislation. They are the ones who are creating the conflict within the party.

    The top 2% are everyone earning more than $250,000. Pushing the cut off to $400,000 only means a tax increase for 0.7% of the pop. Meanwhile, the payroll Tax credit expires which means an extra $1,000 a year in tax for someone making $50,000 a year.

    Its totally fu&d up.

    Q
    Remarkable.You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean,that's a remarkable thing to do



  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    5,105
    "The top 2% are everyone earning more than $250,000. Pushing the cut off to $400,000 only means a tax increase for 0.7% of the pop. Meanwhile, the payroll Tax credit expires which means an extra $1,000 a year in tax for someone making $50,000 a year." Obama lost merit with me on this one too. A sellout and yes...totally fu&d up. sid
    "If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room!"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    It really is all about the art of the possible, and without better insight into what was possible, and needing something, it is hard to say what money was left on the table, so to speak, what prospects there may have been to get it with a bit more negotiating (with economic terrorists, remember), or the pros and cons of not getting any deal, in the interests of ideological purity.

    However, Lawrence O'Donnell made the point that the Democrats set the $200 to $250k income point for the top bracket to kick in, as of 20 years ago. Putting this point into 2012 US dollars, that threshold would be, he says, $396k (approx. $400k). This has been a common sense objection to the rate increases starting at $250k for a lot of otherwise sensible people. Because even in 1990, people earning that amount of money were not necessarily rich at all. Now, that's even less true, and people know it. That was the reason for the Plan B's set point of $1 million a year in income-- EVERYONE basically agreed that was a level of income that was indeed synonymous with being rich.

    Negotiations require a trade-off-- you cannot get everything you wanted. Obama also wanted an extension of the UE compensation, which he got for another year (or two?). He wanted to avoid the contractionary effects of spending cuts. Those were staved off, with no particular extra cuts. The sequester got put off, if only for some months.

    Obviously, compared to a perfect negotiation, he fell short. In the realm of the practical and possible, it's far from obvious what more could have been gotten.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious View Post
    "The top 2% are everyone earning more than $250,000. Pushing the cut off to $400,000 only means a tax increase for 0.7% of the pop. Meanwhile, the payroll Tax credit expires which means an extra $1,000 a year in tax for someone making $50,000 a year." Obama lost merit with me on this one too. A sellout and yes...totally fu&d up. sid
    Your disconnect is that you don't understand the difference between being in the top two percent at earning taxable income and being in the top two to percent of retained wealth.

    The income tax is the best self defense system the wealthy have ... well, that and people who can be pimped into class warfare so easily.

    Here's an easy example. It is common in auto dealerships for their to be a majority owner, or "DEALER PRINCIPAL" and an operating majority partner(s) known usually as a general manager or general sales manager.

    The DP owns the building ... which the business pays them rent for ... and will keep it and one or more homes in a separate property corporation, plus a fleet of cars/trucks/planes/boats in the the property managemeny company's names.

    As majority partner, they control everything ... and take out a relatively small salary, $100K or so for walking around money, plus another $100K for the wife ... and the kids ... and sometimes gal pals. Yet they own/control much weath ... often eight figures, sometimes nine, and even if it's seven figures ... the first digit won't often be a one. Their "JOB" is to sit on their boat, wait for their check, and shred their employees over the financials.

    The minority partner(s) OTOH will draw larger salaries, and work 60 to 100 hours per weeks. They have more income, but far less wealth.

    Now ... most dem voters think Obama stuck it to the guy on the yacht and protected the folks working on a heart attack.

    The reality is that the wolking folks trying to gain sufficient capital to be an eventual competitor with the guy on the yacht is being ground into dust by these policies ...while the guy on the yacht is salivating at being able to trade up from a 60 ft to an 80 ftand going from BEECHCRAFT to a GULFSTREAM and fom a BENZ to a BENTLEY.

    Regardless of how much money a business makes ... a majority owner that takes $400K out in personal earnings is an idiot, and idiots don't personally build such fortunes.

    Some of y'all on the left have your heart in the right place ... and your head in a dark hole.
    Last edited by LWW; 01-03-2013 at 03:48 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    If you're calling for a tax on wealth, please be more explicit. Many would join that call.

    You know how that would go, I'm sure. A 'one-time' 'emergency' tax of .01% of wealth above a certain high enough threshold to gain popular support. Rinse and repeat, with larger numbers.

    In fact, that's what the estate tax does. And it never hurts more than a relative handful of the wage earners of the kind you mention. Those favoring higher income tax rates would generally favor estate tax continuation, and increases. Pretty sure you do not.

    Frankly, the easiest idea would be to call for a 'war tax,' and until it had raised some several trillion dollars (paying for the last two unpaid for wars), it could continue at disparate rates on the tippy-top income earners (million dollar plus a year guys) for some decades. LBJ did something similar, resulting in the balancing of the budget in '69 after he'd left office.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  10. #10
    I didn't call for anything.

    I simply explained how easily dembots are pimped into voting for their own oppression.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •