[Barbshowers]

Who is to blame the most for Americas terrible economy, Bush or Obama? It started when Bush was in charge, and Obama took over.

[Peertantyb]

Gee, I thought all appropriations must begin in the House. And didn't the GOP win the House last November? What have they been doing all this time, cutting taxes for the rich?

The answer to that would be yes.

I see Obama being slammed every day on this forum for unemployment beginning on January 1, 2009, three weeks prior to even taking office, but I imagine the House Republicans are going to be allowed a much longer easing in period, right?

Obama should be slammed every day, it is he that has generated the highest deficits in US history. The Dem's took control of congress in 08 and in the last four yrs. our national debt has skyrocketed. And in Obama's 2011 budget that their was none because the Dem's did not want to scare the hell out of the American people before the mid-term election did not include any cuts. If it were not for the Pub's stepping in to cut 40 billion out of the so called budget we would have more tacked onto our national debt.

The Dem's are only for more entitlements with no regard to cost. Liberals have always thought there is no end to the money supply. Now with our skyrocketing national debt the American people are waking up and saying NO more spending.

[Barbshowers]

Obama should be slammed every day, it is he that has generated the highest deficits in US history. The Dem's took control of congress in 08 and in the last four yrs. our national debt has skyrocketed. And in Obama's 2011 budget that their was none because the Dem's did not want to scare the hell out of the American people before the mid-term election did not include any cuts. If it were not for the Pub's stepping in to cut 40 billion out of the so called budget we would have more tacked onto our national debt.

The Dem's are only for more entitlements with no regard to cost. Liberals have always thought there is no end to the money supply. Now with our skyrocketing national debt the American people are waking up and saying NO more spending.

The dems took over the sinking ship from Bush and company. If a captain took over the charge of Titanic 10 minutes after it hit the iceberg, would you also blame him for the ship sinking?

At least Obama has made sure that the stimulage package are spend wisely, or at least not on salleries to greedy bank directors. That's gotta count for something.

[casinobonusfrees]

The dems took over the sinking ship from Bush and company. If a captain took over the charge of Titanic 10 minutes after it hit the iceberg, would you also blame him for the ship sinking?

At least Obama has made sure that the stimulage package are spend wisely, or at least not on salleries to greedy bank directors. That's gotta count for something.

seriously?

CEO pay is up (as it should be)

The money spent on the "stimulus" was spent in the worts ways possible.

You are delusional...

[Peertantyb]

The dems took over the sinking ship from Bush and company. If a captain took over the charge of Titanic 10 minutes after it hit the iceberg, would you also blame him for the ship sinking?

At least Obama has made sure that the stimulage package are spend wisely, or at least not on salleries to greedy bank directors. That's gotta count for something.

The Dem's took over and began their spending binge and it has it increased our national debt higher and faster than ever before in history. And will increase again by 1.5 trillion this yr. And we have 9% unemployment to show for it.

[D6Ri5u13]

Obama should be slammed every day, it is he that has generated the highest deficits in US history. The Dem's took control of congress in 08 and in the last four yrs. our national debt has skyrocketed. And in Obama's 2011 budget that their was none because the Dem's did not want to scare the hell out of the American people before the mid-term election did not include any cuts. If it were not for the Pub's stepping in to cut 40 billion out of the so called budget we would have more tacked onto our national debt.

The Dem's are only for more entitlements with no regard to cost. Liberals have always thought there is no end to the money supply. Now with our skyrocketing national debt the American people are waking up and saying NO more spending.

Well, Americans are saying no to spending IF it does not affect themselves. Just others.

If someone is saying no to the spending, then their company loses a gov't contract,which unemploys them, do ya think they will still holler to decrease spending? NO, cutting spending is great, but only if oneself is not affected.

We really do need to cut help for the poor, so we got more to spend on wars, killing folks. Ain't that the Pub way? Money for death, but no money for bread. Money for the defense contractors but no money for bakeries.

I got a lot of Repub friends here, who want to cut spending. UNLESS it involves closing down a major customer base, the Air Force base here. And that is the way this shit usually works, ain't it?

[Barbshowers]

The Dem's took over and began their spending binge and it has it increased our national debt higher and faster than ever before in history. And will increase again by 1.5 trillion this yr. And we have 9% unemployment to show for it.

Maybe you should hire the swedish PM for president. He has made Sweden the fastest growing economy in Europe with a 7% growth rate per year.

Or maybe you should consider the chinese version of communism - works for them.

[Barbshowers]

Well, Americans are saying no to spending IF it does not affect themselves. Just others.

Heard that too. That is quite an anti-social outlook to have on society, and you should feel ashamed of that mentality.

[D6Ri5u13]

Heard that too. That is quite an anti-social outlook to have on society, and you should feel ashamed of that mentality.

I cannot be ashamed for stating reality. And that is the reality over here. Which makes it hard for our leaders to solve problems. They want to get elected again.

[hujdrftgkas]

Gee, I thought all appropriations must begin in the House. And didn't the GOP win the House last November? What have they been doing all this time, cutting taxes for the rich?

The answer to that would be yes.

I see Obama being slammed every day on this forum for unemployment beginning on January 1, 2009, three weeks prior to even taking office, but I imagine the House Republicans are going to be allowed a much longer easing in period, right?

You might want to ask OBAMA why it is General Electric earned 14.2 billion dollars last year and didn't pay a penny in taxes on it--

Oh that's right--the CEO of General Electric is now Obama's new job czar.

[pKgGpUlF]

You might want to ask OBAMA why it is General Electric earned 14.2 billion dollars last year and didn't pay a penny in taxes on it--

Oh that's right--the CEO of General Electric is now Obama's new job czar.

You do know that President Obama isn't responsible for writing the tax code, nor for enforcing it, right?

[hujdrftgkas]

A GREAT ONE HOUR PROGRAM every taxpayer should watch is: John Stossel's report called "FREELOADERS"---goes all the way from the panhandler on the street to corporate welfare.

It will shock you.

[hujdrftgkas]

You do know that President Obama isn't responsible for writing the tax code, nor for enforcing it, right?

Yeah--right--- I just find it a little too coincidental that GE didn't pay any federal tax on their earnings of 18.2 billion dollars last year--and the CEO is now Obama's new job's czar.

If you buy into that--I imagine about anyone could convince you of anything.

http://www.mygovcost.org/2011/03/28/...welfare-state/

In America today, who are the biggest freeloaders? Panhandlers? Poor people?

You may be surprised that some of America’s biggest recipients of handouts are rich people, and well-connected corporations. The biggest corporate freeloaders may be the biggest industrial corporation in the world: General Electric.

[pKgGpUlF]

Yeah--right--- I just find it a little too coincidental that GE didn't pay any federal tax on their earnings of 18.2 billion dollars last year--and the CEO is now Obama's new job's czar.

If you buy into that--I imagine about anyone could convince you of anything.

No, really. President Obama absolutely 100% guaranteed did not write the tax code.

And, 100% absolutely guaranteed is not responsible for enforcing it.



Turn off the conservative talk radio and come back to reality.



Oh, and here's some facts for you:

the number you should be worried about is $5.1 billion - that's the profits that were earned based on US operations. See, GE is a global company. That means that they have operations (that means that they do work) all over the world. In lots of different countries. They are responsible for the tax laws for the countries in which they operate, and for the profits they earn for their operations (that's the work) that they do within that specific country.

You should also be concerned because GE is very good at lobbying Congress. Congress is who writes tax law (that's the tax code). Not the President. GE says to men and women in Congress "gee, we'd really like it if you'd write the law this way" and then they do. Been going on for quite a while. Why? Because that's how conservatives like things. Big companies do well, the rich get even more rich, and conservatives are happy and cut the taxes on the rich a bit more.


Or, you can crank up your conservative radio, and be told about how those "evil liberals" are doing something with Planned Parenthood to make GE use wind turbines to create cap and trade credits for aborted black children and then post about it here. Your choice.

[hujdrftgkas]

No, really. President Obama absolutely 100% guaranteed did not write the tax code.

And, 100% absolutely guaranteed is not responsible for enforcing it.



Turn off the conservative talk radio and come back to reality.



Oh, and here's some facts for you:

the number you should be worried about is $5.1 billion - that's the profits that were earned based on US operations. See, GE is a global company. That means that they have operations (that means that they do work) all over the world. In lots of different countries. They are responsible for the tax laws for the countries in which they operate, and for the profits they earn for their operations (that's the work) that they do within that specific country.

You should also be concerned because GE is very good at lobbying Congress. Congress is who writes tax law (that's the tax code). Not the President. GE says to men and women in Congress "gee, we'd really like it if you'd write the law this way" and then they do. Been going on for quite a while. Why? Because that's how conservatives like things. Big companies do well, the rich get even more rich, and conservatives are happy and cut the taxes on the rich a bit more.


Or, you can crank up your conservative radio, and be told about how those "evil liberals" are doing something with Planned Parenthood to make GE use wind turbines to create cap and trade credits for aborted black children and then post about it here. Your choice.

John Stossel’s Freeloaders TV Special Unmasks the Hypocrisy of the U.S. Welfare State MyGovCost | Government Cost Calculator

In America today, who are the biggest freeloaders? Panhandlers? Poor people?

You may be surprised that some of America’s biggest recipients of handouts are rich people, and well-connected corporations. The biggest corporate freeloaders may be the biggest industrial corporation in the world: General Electric. So by not taxing them--WE'RE MAKING them do windmills-- That's kind of like sending 20 BILLION dollars out of Obama's 787 BILLION so called economic stimulus bill to create jobs here--were sent to China so they can build windmills for us.

[pKgGpUlF]

He/she broke out the John Stossel. Does it get worse?


Stossel is a liar and an idiot.

[hujdrftgkas]

He/she broke out the John Stossel. Does it get worse?


Stossel is a liar and an idiot.

Coming from someone that's never watched his program Freeloaders. In fact, Stossel admits he is rich--and once owned a piece of property on a beach--that got flooded--and he admits he received a government hand-out from the national flood insurance program. Yeah he's a LIAR alright--LOL.

So you really can't debate--and when you're cornered everyone that you disagree with is a liar--


You're all for taxing the wealthy in this country-yet-I give you one single example of an American corporation that pays no taxes and made 18.2 billion dollars last year--and simply because the CEO is Obama's job czar--you're defending the fact that they pay no taxes. UNBELIEVABLE.

[pKgGpUlF]

Coming from someone that's never watched his program Freeloaders. In fact, Stossel admits he is rich--and once owned a piece of property on a beach--that got flooded--and he admits he received a government hand-out from the national flood insurance program. Yeah he's a LIAR alright--LOL.

So you really can't debate--and when you're cornered everyone that you disagree with is a liar--

Hardly. My refusal to give viewing time to someone like Stossel is irrelevant. My issues with him are not about the size of his bank account, or whether he got some flood insurance money. I don't give two shits about that.

You haven't cornered me in the slightest. What you've done is surrounded yourself by people that tell you exactly what you want to hear, over and over and over, and then are shocked and indignant when others dare to disagree with those talking heads.

Unfortunately for you, those talking heads, like you, are constantly wrong. Reality seemingly has a liberal bias.


edit (to add your edit)

You're all for taxing the wealthy in this country-yet-I give you one single example of an American corporation that pays no taxes and made 18.2 billion dollars last year--and simply because the CEO is Obama's job czar--you're defending the fact that they pay no taxes. UNBELIEVABLE.

For example of you being wrong. Again.

I'm just presenting reality. If you'd bother to pay attention, I've advocated for simplifying the tax code, reducing or eliminating lobbying, and eliminating any corporate contributions to political campaigns.

Guess what would happen to GE's ability to manipulate tax code if they couldn't give money to politicians?


Oh, and I really don't give exceptions to GE because of Immelt's being on Obama's staff. I'm less than thrilled with Obama these days, though he's still FAR better than McCain would have been, especially if Palin had somehow ended up in the Oval Office.

[hujdrftgkas]

Hardly. My refusal to give viewing time to someone like Stossel is irrelevant. My issues with him are not about the size of his bank account, or whether he got some flood insurance money. I don't give two shits about that.

You haven't cornered me in the slightest. What you've done is surrounded yourself by people that tell you exactly what you want to hear, over and over and over, and then are shocked and indignant when others dare to disagree with those talking heads.

Unfortunately for you, those talking heads, like you, are constantly wrong. Reality seemingly has a liberal bias.


edit (to add your edit)



For example of you being wrong. Again.

I'm just presenting reality. If you'd bother to pay attention, I've advocated for simplifying the tax code, reducing or eliminating lobbying, and eliminating any corporate contributions to political campaigns.

Guess what would happen to GE's ability to manipulate tax code if they couldn't give money to politicians?


Oh, and I really don't give exceptions to GE because of Immelt's being on Obama's staff. I'm less than thrilled with Obama these days, though he's still FAR better than McCain would have been, especially if Palin had somehow ended up in the Oval Office.

You're being hypocritical. You can't be for taxing the wealthy--then defend not taxing the wealthy because one of them happens to be Obama's job czar.

And that's exactly what you have done on this thread. And if you would actually watch the freeloader program presented by John Stossel--prior to referring to it as a lie--you would have a lot more credibility.

[pKgGpUlF]

You're being hypocritical. You can't be for taxing the wealthy--then defend not taxing the wealthy because one of them happens to be Obama's job czar.

And that's exactly what you have done on this thread. And if you would actually watch the freeloader program presented by John Stossel--prior to referring to it as a lie--you would have a lot more credibility.

Do I really need to explain the differences between taxing an individual, in this case Mr. Immelt, and a corporation, in this case GE? Really?






Seriously? You don't understand the difference?









Really?















You can't be serious.
















Can you?