Obama is squealing like a pig in mud. He knows he loses all power in January.
Obama "Sticking it to the Rich" with Taxes, Socialism, and B.S.
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
Obama is squealing like a pig in mud. He knows he loses all power in January.
I disagree. Welfare begets generation after generation of welfare. If you would cut welfare, you'd see people getting jobs fast or you die.
Shared commitment to things like education, police protection, fire protection, etc. constitutes "welfare" to be cut? Those things are equally shared commitments for the quality of life benefit in our country.You may not benefit from paying into unemployment insurance (for example) just like police protection, fire protection, etc. but it exists and is funded by a shared commitment to be there when you or anyone else needs it.
That's a form of welfare in the abstract.
What's your alternative proposition?
roronoa3000
Banned
What jobs?
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Obama could simply point to GOPers opposing a $30B financing of unemployment extensions on the basis of it mortgaging our "children's future" but supporting the financing (deficit spending) a $300B tax cut for the top 2 pct. when it does the exact same thing they argued against.
I'm sure neither he nor any of his mouth pieces with make that argument though.
I mean, just challenge them on the consistency of their arguments for a "change"!!!!
I'd rep u 4 that but I can't.
Would it help you to know that shortly the UK will be the same way?
I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's operation regardless of what my income is. For fuck's sake, get a job with benefits, you worthless mope. Pay for your own goddamn shit.
You say that now. Wait till you lose your job. Why not look at the pilots who were paid poorly because people will do the job for the love of it; PEOPLE WANT TO WORK.
I can't wait for the day you get an expensive illness and go to your insurer who says "nuh uh, we aint paying; you drink alcohol and that aint healthy."
BULL! Talk to people on welfare and you'll find that they want a job above all else in 95% of cases.
I LOVE how people like you tow the line of the rich as though it's in your interest. The rich will fuck you over too the moment they get a chance.
:thumbsup: quoted for truth.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Bingo!
what you would also see is people not having babies they can't afford or raise to be responsible, normal human beings.
over time society and the ecomony would return to the way it was in the past,
greatness.
but that's obviously not gonna happen so we have to accept it and think very carefully on whether or not we want to bring a child into the world to be a tax slave to the beast that is government and the ever growing welfare populous who keep them in business.
fuck, imagine what its gonna be like in 20 years, 50 years.
And it really amazes how many people are such big defenders of huge government and huge taxes.
the rich or the working class are not the problem, not the enemy.
when was the last time a poor person gave you a job anyway?
I imagine "poor" people hire plumbers, electricians, mechanics, dentists, etc. too. Those are jobs meester...However, it is the absolute rare instance in which anyone is given a job by anybody.
A "rich" person doesn't give anyone a job...the only reason they part ways with their money in the case of hiring is because it stands to make them more money.
Point being profitability doesn't translate into hiring employees because those who are in business are so to earn profits (maximized) not to hire people.
Not that you made this point but an extension of my point would be tax cuts don't necessarily spur hiring. Because companies are in business to realize/maximize profits, whatever windfalls (if you will) they recoup in the form of tax cuts will likely go towards everything but hiring. Most likely just more profits.
Now there's nothing wrong with profits ..that's why I'm in business. My point is simply hiring behavior isn't affected by taxes beyond direct credits for hiring.
Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
No, besides you and a few other Brits who hate my country, I have nothing against England.
I see you clearly for you it is better living depending on someone's else wallet. Euopean social systems have failed, I think it is up to people to be responsible for their ownselves. I am not goingt to pay for some fucvking parasites with my taxes so that they can pay their health care and have social helps. The french police was supposed to be effective but it is not. The quality of life in France used to be excellent 25 years ago but not now with the wide opened frontiers and the excessive number of migrants just coming to leech off the social system, it just became shitty. I will tell you one thing, I am not going to pay a dime nor a cent for a parasite. "Stay poor, die poor but don't leech off my hard earned money." So what even I had money, I am forced to make charity? Fuck that, I would rather put my money in that case in some banks in the bahamas or in the caiman isles so I would never have to share and pay for someone else's misery.
roronoa3000
Banned
Georges do you own property? If so, is it insured? If so, why are you using a socialist principle of shared indemnity (protection against loss) where in case there is a loss by another policy holder a portion of the money you've been paying goes to make whole that policy holder?
Why don't you just risk loss at the expense of paying for your entire loss yourself instead of pooling your money together with others to offset a potential loss?
If you own property of sufficient value where there is a risk of damage or loss and you don't have it insured, well I guess :georges::updown:
Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
Hey kettle, the pot called, it wants it's hypocrisy back.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
On those occasions that I speak on behalf of Europe it is on behalf of countries I have been to and have a feel for.
What part of the past are you talking about? The part where a large majority of the population wasn't allowed to vote simply because they were too poor?
The part of the past when people used slaves simply because using free people wasn't profitable enough/at all?
The part where the majorty of profit went to the kings & queens?
Or do you mean the part of the past where people still hunted buffalos with spears & arrows in what would later be called the Americas & people in Europe still served their feudal lords & gave him almost everything?
Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
That's nice but I wasn't talking about Europe.
The political parties are so corrupt. Any talk of politics and economics is a farce.
Obama, who I voted for, is nuts. His policies are destroying the economy and if allowed to exists, will harm the economy for years to come.
Reagonomics does not work. You can't speand that much on the military withour wreckign the economy. Pure supply-side has real merit, but it is a fantasy to think it would be implemented by politicians.
The political parties are just bribing us with our own money. Stop looking for hand outs. Stop looking for "programs". It is tough, but the only way out of this mess is to cut EVERYTHING except infrastructure repair.
Obama, who I voted for, is nuts. His policies are destroying the economy and if allowed to exists, will harm the economy for years to come.
Reagonomics does not work. You can't speand that much on the military withour wreckign the economy. Pure supply-side has real merit, but it is a fantasy to think it would be implemented by politicians.
The political parties are just bribing us with our own money. Stop looking for hand outs. Stop looking for "programs". It is tough, but the only way out of this mess is to cut EVERYTHING except infrastructure repair.
Most of the stimulus is infrastructure spending and tax cuts. Beyond that the bulk of the deficit comes by way of the $300B Bush era tax cuts for the top 2% and the wars.:2 cents:
But it's been said time and time again that the stimulus has done largely what it was intended to do...stop the recession. Certainly there is no telling where the unemployment rate would be by now without some of the bailout/spending. I guess there is some philosophical debate people can have over that but without question it has prevented the u/e rate from going higher. Even as such, the stimulus hasn't even fully been deployed...
You should take a look at how the rates were under Reagan at this same point in his term.
Similar threads
