Is Sarah Palin the only one who can beat O'bama

How would it be possible for you to be more brainwashed and ideologically blinded? The Democrats had total power from 2007 on. The Republicans had NO power from that time on and you still stupidly attempt to blame anyone else but the party in power. You don't hesitate to blame Republicans when they WERE in power. But somehow still blame them when the Democrats had the power. Unintelligent and illogical.

Just to pick on one bit of nonsense you posted. Republicans against extending unemployment benefits. Republicans CLEARLY said, "show us how to pay for the extension and we'll vote for it." MSNBC might not have told you that. I'd say that asking where $50 billion dollars is supposed to come from is showing reasonable responsibility. Democrats had no answer so Democrats passed the extension on a partisan basis. So HOW did the Republicans stop a bill that got passed, signed and put into effect?

 

Talk about being brainwashed! Someone that has completely shut down to reason has no business calling other people brainwashed. "The Democrats had total power from 2007 on" - gee, that's a whole year out of Bush's 8 years! I guess the previous 7 years don't count? Talk about unintelligent and illogical! That's sheer ignorance.

Republicans keep using the "quit spending" on everything except extending the tax cuts to the rich! How come they didn't ask "show us how to pay for the extensions" on those? And, MSNBC doesn't change reality like Faux News.
"Republicans are declaring an all-out war on unemployed Americans," Reid spokesman Jim Manley emails. "Even though Democrats have the votes to give unemployed workers the safety net they deserve, Republicans are callously delaying the vote for an entire day. There are people literally waiting for this assistance to buy food and pay their bills while they search for work. Why should they suffer for another day?"

Right now, as we speak, Senate Republicans continue to file a bunch of motions that could delay the vote on extending unemployment benefits for as long as another day.

(Senate votes 60-40 to advance jobless benefits)

This is key: It's a reminder that Republicans intend to continue to try to block the extension, unless its costs are offset, for as long as possible. Nobody is focused on this, but Republicans actually see a political upside for themselves in this standoff.

I'm going to say this again: While it's unanimously assumed that Dems hold all the political cards in this standoff, Republicans have their own strategy here. They believe that while Dems can milk this for short term advantage, over time any discussion of "chronic" joblessness -- a term you'll hear more often -- draws attention to the failure of Dem economic policies and feeds the GOP's larger critique of the inefficacy of the Dems' big spending ways.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/republicans_delay_vote_on_unem.html

Ha! Not when they are willing to spend $36B to extend the tax cuts to the rich, who don't need it! That is rich, "responsibility" - only a moron would not be able to see through that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081105864.html

With their negotiations - give the rich their tax cuts and we'll agree to go along! Where were you when that went on? Why do Republicans/conservatives act like there was no strings attached on the Republican side with that particular bill that would have affected regular folk? Why do they play the "dumb card" on that one?

Obama said there were elements of the deal he personally opposed, including an extension of expiring income tax cuts at upper income levels and a more generous deal on estates. But he said he decided that an agreement with Republicans was more important that a stalemate that would have resulted in higher income taxes at all income levels on Jan. 1.

"Make no mistake, allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family and that could cost our economy well over a million jobs," he said at the White House.

Top Democrats traveled to the White House earlier Monday and left later without discussing the details of their discussions with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Several officials said there was discontent over tax cut provisions that Republicans had demanded from the president, apparently successfully.

http://www.theskanner.com/article/U...x-Cuts-for-the-Rich-Republicans-Get-Their-Way

 

Add up the deficits of 7 years of Bush and a Republican Congress, and then add up the 4 years of a Democrat controlled Congress.

Bush and the Republicans were terrible!

The 4 years of Democrats ARE 4 times worse.

You want to let the Bush [now obama tax cuts] expire? OK fine. We go back to the Clinton tax rates on the rich. That increases the tax rate on the top incomes from 35% to 39.6%. That will generate $70 billion dollars per year in increased revenue if it doesn't hurt the economy. And neither you nor I can say if it will or won't. That extra $70 billion would cover obama's SMALLEST spending deficit of $1,293.5 TRILLION in just a couple of DECADES! His projected deficit for 2011, $1.645 in only 23.5 years. That's your solution?

 

Yet Republicans continue to give the wealthy/corporations a free ride on taxes!

But the FACT is, the government really isn’t spending all that much more, adjusted for inflation, than it did in 2001, when George W Bush and the Neocon Republican Party were handed a $400 billion surplus; certainly they're not spending $2 trillion more, which is how much higher the deficit is than it was in 2001. [/B]The increase in the deficit isn’t because we spend too much; it’s because we don’t have enough money coming in, because there just aren’t enough taxpayers.

And please stop blaming Social Security and Medicare. Both of those programs are paid for, and don’t add one red cent to the deficit. Social Security alone has a paper surplus that keeps it completely solvent for another 35 years, absent any changes to the law. But the fact of the matter is, most entitlement programs are more than paid for by the taxes earmarked to pay for them. All gutting Social Security would do would be to allow them to take more Social Security money, apply it to the general fund, and pretend the deficit went down. That’s a key word in right wing circles; “pretend.” They pretend a lot. They pretended that their approach to economy was the greatest ever, and look what happened. Trusting the current breed of Republican with your money is not a smart idea.

You can never cut enough from government spending to reduce a $1.5 trillion deficit; it just can’t be done. In fact, by cutting most spending, Republicans are actually making a bad situation worse. By cutting government spending, you actually reduce the amount of money in the economy, which actually has a depressing effect on jobs. A depressing effect on jobs means more unemployed and fewer taxpayers, which will result in a higher deficit, not a lower one.

Apparently, Republicans would like you to believe that the government is loading up rockets with dollar bills and shooting them off into space. But every dollar the government spends goes into the economy and circulates. Every single dollar, including those from that bloaed defense budget, actually goes into someone's bank account and subsequently to the bank to pay the mortgage, to the supermarket to pay for food, and to utilities to pay for energy use.

ttp://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/03/cutting-spending-will-increase-the-deficit-gop-geniuses.html

Agreed!

Considering on where the spending went, I would say the Reps are worse.
At least the Dems are concerned with saving the programs that help the regular folk, unlike the Reps, whose main concern are the rich.

I'm not a politician, but I have sense enough to know that the Republican's way is how we ended up in such a mess - why should we want to continue it?

Unfortunately, Americans are paying a heavy price for the Bush administration’s economic policies in the form of tremendous debt. While Bush cut taxes, he and Republicans in Congress supported more federal spending.

The Republicans didn’t see fit to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — which have cost more than $1 trillion — or much of anything else. There was no plan to increase taxes or find other ways to free up federal money to pay for those efforts. As a result, the surplus vanished, the government was back to borrowing and the deficit skyrocketed.

“You can’t cut taxes without cutting spending,” she says. “But what did we do? We cut taxes and we increased spending. So we left ourselves in a tremendous fiscal mess.”

The nation will be in a terrible financial situation for years to come if it doesn’t do something about the deficit. The Republicans have used the situation to try to further their narrow ideology and cut Social Security, Medicare and other federal programs.

The Republican leadership in Congress has laughably tried to make itself out to be fiscally responsible with its disingenuous and dangerous plans. They have even tried to blame Democrats and President Barack Obama for the nation’s economic woes, but they should look in the mirror. The GOP’s policies pushed the country into this mess.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jun/11/somber-anniversary/

 

Dems concerned about programs that help regular folk?

You mean programs like obamacare that steals HALF A TRILLION dollars from Medicare to provide half the funding for obamacare? That kind of concern?

Why do libs conveniently forget that obamacare rapes Medicare for its funding??

And Republicans are giving the rich a free ride? The top 1% of income in the USA paid OVER 38% of all US income taxes while the bottom 51% of incomes paid NOTHING AT ALL. Now WHO is getting the free ride?
Get some facts instead of mindless brainwashed drivel.
From 2003 to 2010. The horrible Bush tax cuts saved the rich $490 billion dollars. That IS a lot of money. But you ALSO have to remember that the "less than rich," got a tax cut TOO. The Bush tax cuts saved the "less than Rich,' meaning everyone else $2,100,000,000,000.00 while it saved the 'rich." $490 billion. That's $2.1 TRILLION saved by the "NOT RICH."

And you liberals keep chanting the mindless mantra, "tax the rich!" Well HOW MUCH? How much do you want? The fact that that is NEVER stated is proof enough that tax the rich is class warfare perpetrated by leftist radicals, NOT an approach to a solution.

Slogans pay no bills.

 

Facts?! FACTS?!

Here are some facts...

Top 1% own 38.1% of the wealth.
Bottom 40% of population has 0.2% of all wealth.

http://www.dailypaul.com/111232/us-wealth-distribution-10-of-us-citizens-own-709-of-all-us-assets

You can't get blood from a stone. Be my guest. Go ahead and pay off the $14 Trillion debt with the assets of the bottom 40%. I guess you learned arithmatic at the same school where Sara Palin and Michelle Bachmann learned US history.

Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!

You Repubicrazies crack me up. No wonder the country was so screwed after GW Dufus did the math. The war is going to pay for itself, remember that one?

 

You cite a stat from a politicians website. I disregard everything said on that website and I don't disagree with Ron Paul on many issue. Some but not all. But I do not use sources where anyone has an axe to grind.

So your claim:

First, its false.
second, there in NO income tax on wealth. It is called income tax because it is a tax on I-N-C-O-M-E..
I'll explain later what a tax on wealth would do.

The top 1% in income pays 38.02% of the TOTAL income tax of the USA. That group enjoys 20% of the total personal income of the US. So they are paying a percentage of the INCOME tax well above their INCOME share.

No other group does that. The lowest 50% of income pays 2.7% of the personal INCOME tax and "enjoys" 12.75% of the personal income of the US. So they pay 0.21 times their share of the personal income and the top 1% pays 1.901 times their share of the US personal income.

 

I agree the US government and the IRS should consider all forms of cap gains, gifts, trusts, certain interest bearing accounts, and heck higher end pensions as income. If only for fairness.

 

They do now, they have for all of my 70 years. I have no "ordinary income" in retirement. I get SS and returns on my investments. I pay ordinary income tax on 85% of my SS income and various tax rates on my investment returns. But I have no tax free income. I could have around $2500 per month tax free disability income from the military, but I signed off on that many years ago. My 'disability' is so minor as to be unnoticeable to me so I could not take money for it. Some truly disabled veteran can use that money better than me.

 

Are they trying to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security like Republicans would like to?

Quit lying about what Obamacare does and doesn't do - only the brainwashed that watch Faux News believe that crap.

While Obama's health care overhaul does eventually trim subsidies to Medicare Advantage - which are privately managed policies that some seniors pay extra for - older Americans should see little or no decline in care.

New York's 2.8 million Medicare beneficiaries should actually find several new goodies in the new law, among them $250 rebates this year to help fill the so-called "doughnut hole" in prescription drug coverage.

"This health reform improves benefits, it does not take away benefits, for seniors," said Tricia Neuman, vice president for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "It strengthens Medicare by keeping it fiscally stronger for longer, and it puts in place reforms that should genuinely improve quality of care."

http://conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.com/2010/03/republican-lies-and-falsehoods-about.html

Because it is a lie that is being spread by Reps/cons.

Those are cold, hard facts. The average health care CEO makes $14 million a year, while 47 million people go without health care at all.

You need the facts. But, once you have them, you need to write them down and pass them on to others, spread the word, because the opposition…the Fascists, Neocons, Conservatives, Right Wing…have engineered a huge propaganda machine against the truth.

We need a quick primer on Fascism, so bear with us on this. A Fascist is someone who believes that a government should be a collusion of the military, the central government, huge industrial corporations and a dedicated, isolated group at the top. They make the decisions. They decide…not for you…but for them. Does that sound like anyone you know? A group that will not tax the rich, only give them tax breaks? A group that will not cut subsidies for giant food corporations and giant oil companies… but will gladly charge you $4.20 a gallon for gasoline? A group that will not even remotely consider cutting the military budget, larger than all of the other countries in the world…all of them…combined? They don’t hate the Jews or the Blacks as much as they just want money…more money!
http://www.populistdaily.com/politics/overturning-the-republican-lie-machine.html

That is a lie, as pointed out in my previous post. I guess the fact that GE didn't pay any taxes doesn't concern you, but some poor schmuck who got unemployed and is barely making it makes you sick that he paid little or no taxes?

It isn't about giving the rich more money, which they don't need - it's about helping the economy. Something that Reps/cons don't seem to get while they wait for the money to trickle down to them.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/12/tax-cuts-won-t-work.html

And conservatives keep saying cut all the programs that help the poor. So the middle-class, will just continue to pay their taxes while receiving nothing in return, to make sure that the rich are able to stash away more money while the economy continues to suck. Eventually half of the nation will be homeless (including many Republicans) and the best we can hope for is getting a job cleaning the house of the wealthy! Way to go Reps.

Neither not taxing the rich.

 

If he messes with social security and medicare like I've been reading that he wants to do...my DOG could beat him!

 

Maybe you should have moved to Costa Rica when Obama was elected then! Of course I heard a lot of lies come out of Obama's mouth when he was running for election. And quite frankly I think Obama's skin color had a LOT to do with getting him elected.

So why aren't you on a beach in Costa Rica far away from the AMERICAN IDIOTS who elected Obozo to the presidency?

 

Lol...Go buy a porn mag and leave the politics to the adults, kid.
Then go buy yourself a dictionary and learn how to write in English without sounding like an illiterate fool.

 

Well according to what I've spent all morning reading...YES Obama is trying to get rid of medicare and social security!

 

God Bless you for serving and for your last line!!!!

 

Interesting. I haven't seen this. What have you read and what specifically is he trying to do to get rid of Medicare & SS?

 

Yahoo had it yesterday morning and then the Washington Post picked it up. I posted a thread on it here:


http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...tly-obama-wants-decrease-social-security.html

 

If SP is the only one capable of beating the incumbent, then the GOP is in a very bad place indeed.

 

Hmmm. So with just one question, the story changes from "Obama wants to GET RID of Medicare and SS" to "Obama wants to DECREASE Medicare".

Then a link to only part of the story is given but basically, the Obama plan would have less effect on Medicare than the Ryan Plan.

So are you in favor of the Ryan Plan?

 

Are you including the $500,000,000,000.00 that obamacare is going to take out of Medicare to fund obamacare?

 

Obamacare sucks. So, so sorry. If you're looking for someone whose thoughts are fed to them by straight party line, you'll have to find a Liberal or look in the mirror...

In either case, the article cited specifically states it would "reduce" Medicare. That means to make smaller, to to make go away. Just helpin! I'm a helper. It's what I do

 

A helper? But a helper unwilling or unable to answer a reasonable question.
So I'll restate the question. In "reducing Medicare" according to the article in question. Does his 'reduction' of Medicare include the $500 billion of Medicare funds that obamacare clearly intends to use to fund obamacare?

And this is not a "Party" question. It is public knowledge that $500 billion of obamacare funding is to come from Medicare "savings."

 

Not SS... just Medicare and fold it into universal healthcare.

It will save a ton of money after the initial phase.

 

And when are we supposed to get universal health care? So far there is no universal healthcare on the horizon in the USA. obamacare has nothing to do with actual health care. It is far from universal health insurance that must be purchased from a wide variety of insurance companies, that will differ somewhat from state to state.
obamacare is a health INSURANCE plan that will be unbelievably more expensive than anyone can possibly imagine. obamacare is an insurance plan like Medicare is, except it is for those under 65. And instead of the Govt supplying the insurance as Medicare does. Commercial, FOR PROFIT, insurance companies will supply the insurance, IN THEIR AREAS.

Medicare, under complete Govt control from day one had an estimate cost per 10 years. Its actual cost is now 1500% higher than the estimate, PER YEAR. each year it cost 1500 times the 10 year estimate of what it would cost. That was the CBO estimate, and they estimated millions. not even billions. For obamacare the CBO estimates at just under a TRILLION. It will cost, if not repealed, several times that estimate. Just like every other long term CBO estimate does.

 

Direct answer: Hell, I don't know.

Hell, there are a LOT of things I don't know everything about. I do know enough about Obamacare to know there are several things about it I don't like it. I don't like that it penalizes people for being to poor to buy insurance. I downloaded it at one point but it's longer than five Tom Clancy novels. Overwhelming.

In either case, I was just calling the OP on the "eliminate" vs "reduce" wording.