Obama Said...

[Guest]

During the 2009 debate about extending the Bush tax cuts, President Obama supported the two-year extension (actually it was "traded" for political support for something the Democrats wanted, as I recall). At the time he said, "...you don't increase taxes during a recession."

Now, as Congress begins to consider what to do about the sunsetting of those same cuts at the end of the year, the president is saying that he's in favor of extending the cuts for all but the top wage earners. In fact, he's said he will veto any bill that does not include additional income taxes on the most wealthy Americans. I believe it was he CBO who's projected that this would effect about 940,000 tax payers.

So what's happening here?

Has the economy improved to the point that a small tax increase is justified for those that cleary can afford it? Has he POTUS given up on the private sector, who's sitting on over $2 trillion in cash and not investing, creating new jobs, etc.? Do you think this is just an excuse for "income redistribution"? Is the change in position just the result of politics, defining the differences with Romney for the upcoming election? Or is President Obama simply a bald-faced liar?

What do you think?

[Guest]

During the 2009 debate about extending the Bush tax cuts, President Obama supported the two-year extension (actually it was "traded" for political support for something the Democrats wanted, as I recall). At the time he said, "...you don't increase taxes during a recession."

Now, as Congress begins to consider what to do about the sunsetting of those same cuts at the end of the year, the president is saying that he's in favor of extending the cuts for all but the top wage earners. In fact, he's said he will veto any bill that does not include additional income taxes on the most wealthy Americans. I believe it was he CBO who's projected that this would effect about 940,000 tax payers.

So what's happening here?

Has the economy improved to the point that a small tax increase is justified for those that cleary can afford it? Has he POTUS given up on the private sector, who's sitting on over $2 trillion in cash and not investing, creating new jobs, etc.? Do you think this is just an excuse for "income redistribution"? Is the change in position just the result of politics, defining the differences with Romney for the upcoming election? Or is President Obama simply a bald-faced liar?

What do you think?

You should never give me multiple choices like you did, but listen...

This President, each and every year has said publicly he is opposed to and will not allow the Bush Tax cuts to be extended.....each and every year he has allowed the Bush tax cuts to be extended.

Now, the WH almost admits this latest fiasco is pretty much all political. His own party leaders want the amount to be one million...he goes for 250,000 because it is much better politically.

I then choose the last two with no fear. This is simply another little stunt much like the illegal immigrant speech.

[Guest]

It's all about dividing people. It's the old tried and true "class envy" gambit. It does little good except to make some people think that those who they imagine have "too much money" are going to be socked, while they are safe. ("screw them rich bastards")

This is what you do when you don't know what to do.

[Guest]

what we know from over three years of experience there is nothing Obama does that does not include his self promoting political personal need and or agenda. Hence the answer to one of your questions is, yes it is purely political to gain/retain a particular voting block potential.

We also know from experience it matters not what he says or said on any subject that he would not change the same day if it would gain/retain a particular voting block potential. Answering another of your questions, yes on many issues he does out and out lie.

btk

[Guest]

Now that we've heard the obligatory and predictable comments from curly, larry & moe, I'd suggest the President's current position is taken for multiple reasons. This is often what he does anyway.

Based on his ambitious level of activity level in three years, I think he is looking for any possible way to get the hoarded trillions back into circulation. Call it the hated 'income redistribution' if you like, 'symbolic' only if you keep trying to shoo it away like a pesky bug. But that money is the most available and obvious key to finally turning the corner on the recession.

And he's doing it for political reasons, because it help to further differentiate him from his opponent. It's in his best interest to take a strong position on this, because it makes sense to lots of folks and will likely lead to more voter support. The opponent has to agree with the President's position to neutralize it's effect, and he just can't do that.

Finally, I think he's doing this because he thinks it's the right thing to do. He has a habit of doing that,

[Guest]

Obama needs the middle class vote but because of his aggressive financial agenda he is in a bind until his re-election. So he knows the rich will not give him his vote and he has done a good job in disenfranchising them so he kicks the can down the road on the bush tax issue long enough to get voted in (of course by pandering and luring middle class people into believing he cares about them.) Once elected the bush tax cuts are over and new taxes added. and he has once again made rich people villians and he Saint Saviour
If it were otherwise he would have push for a permanent bush era tax cuts.

What amazes me is this guy must believe we all just fell out of tree.

[Guest]

I think (since you asked) that one should not put so much credence in campaign promises in the first place.

Everyone knows that the conditions during the promises period are not the same as the conditions (i.e. global markets, oil markets, and Dem or Rep majority in Senate and House) after the Inauguration in 2013.

I think it's better to decide based on the assessment of TRUSTWORTHINESS and ACTIONS and FIDELITY of the person that we can read from the person's life, words and actions during his life leading up to this time.

[Guest]

Terminating the Bush tax cuts for those over 250k would add back about 85 billion a year to the government. The government spends that every 9.5 days.


Sent from my iPad

[Guest]

I have a good friend who is becoming disenchanted with the republican party.
He said there were two things stopping him from jumping party lines. One is Obama. And the second one is the training one must have to go through to learn to always be derogatory by calling those who have an opposing view, names.

For me once the name calling, snipping and bashing begin I usually don't read the entire post. I may be missing some good info as a result, however I am of the opinion the name callers do so for a reason....lack of sufficient verbiage knowledge to deal with opposition, hence ........I am sure I am not missing much.

And the most surprising to me is the derogatory name calling and bashing is not limited to this forum. It seems to be the operating mode of the dems. One would think they would know the name calling does little or nothing to help their credibility. For me, no matter how bright they may be the rude practice deteriorates any credibility the might have.

It's just to easy to make an opposing view with respect.

I also conclude that some may view that having an opposing view is derogatory to them......pretty narrow approach!!

btk

[Guest]

I have a good friend who is becoming disenchanted with the republican party.
He said there were two things stopping him from jumping party lines. One is Obama. And the second one is the training one must have to go through to learn to always be derogatory by calling those who have an opposing view, names.

For me once the name calling, snipping and bashing begin I usually don't read the entire post. I may be missing some good info as a result, however I am of the opinion the name callers do so for a reason....lack of sufficient verbiage knowledge to deal with opposition, hence ........I am sure I am not missing much.

And the most surprising to me is the derogatory name calling and bashing is not limited to this forum. It seems to be the operating mode of the dems. One would think they would know the name calling does little or nothing to help their credibility. For me, no matter how bright they may be the rude practice deteriorates any credibility the might have.

It's just to easy to make an opposing view with respect.

I also conclude that some may view that having an opposing view is derogatory to them......pretty narrow approach!!

btk

My opinion....this is a GREAT post and covers a multitude of things VERY accurately !

[Guest]

I have a good friend who is becoming disenchanted with the republican party.
He said there were two things stopping him from jumping party lines. One is Obama. And the second one is the training one must have to go through to learn to always be derogatory by calling those who have an opposing view, names.

For me once the name calling, snipping and bashing begin I usually don't read the entire post. I may be missing some good info as a result, however I am of the opinion the name callers do so for a reason....lack of sufficient verbiage knowledge to deal with opposition, hence ........I am sure I am not missing much.

And the most surprising to me is the derogatory name calling and bashing is not limited to this forum. It seems to be the operating mode of the dems. One would think they would know the name calling does little or nothing to help their credibility. For me, no matter how bright they may be the rude practice deteriorates any credibility the might have.

It's just to easy to make an opposing view with respect.

I also conclude that some may view that having an opposing view is derogatory to them......pretty narrow approach!!

btk

I didn't get trained. Where does one find these training sessions? :evil6:

[Guest]

Now that we've heard the obligatory and predictable comments from curly, larry & moe, I'd suggest the President's current position is taken for multiple reasons. This is often what he does anyway.

Based on his ambitious level of activity level in three years, I think he is looking for any possible way to get the hoarded trillions back into circulation. Call it the hated 'income redistribution' if you like, 'symbolic' only if you keep trying to shoo it away like a pesky bug. But that money is the most available and obvious key to finally turning the corner on the recession.

And he's doing it for political reasons, because it help to further differentiate him from his opponent. It's in his best interest to take a strong position on this, because it makes sense to lots of folks and will likely lead to more voter support. The opponent has to agree with the President's position to neutralize it's effect, and he just can't do that.

Finally, I think he's doing this because he thinks it's the right thing to do. He has a habit of doing that,

The Kool-Aid is strong with this one. You are an excellent disciple.

[Guest]

nothing to add so an insult again,good job

[Guest]

Just to add to the ongoing political games played...

"Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, tried to set up competing votes — one on the GOP's plan to extend all the tax cuts for one year, and another on Mr. Obama's proposal to extend them only for households making $250,000 or less.

But Mr. Reid objected to the request, saying he didn't want to have the vote on the GOP's legislation.

"It's the help Paris Hilton legislation," he said. "It would give people like her a tax break for doing nothing — $46 billion of the American people's money to help Paris Hilton and others."

Mr. McConnell said he was just trying to get senators on record so voters could see which senators supported the president and which supported the broader tax cut.

"The Senate should make itself clear which policy it supports. This is our chance to do it," he said."

".....but Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, essentially sidelining the president's plan.

Dems block Obama's tax-cut bill - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jul/11/dems-block-obamas-tax-cut-bill/)

No, its the right thing to do and not politics....right !! Illegal immigration speech...right thing to do..right, and NO way to enforce what he said...guess he forgot about that !

[Guest]

Just to add to the ongoing political games played...

"Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, tried to set up competing votes — one on the GOP's plan to extend all the tax cuts for one year, and another on Mr. Obama's proposal to extend them only for households making $250,000 or less.

But Mr. Reid objected to the request, saying he didn't want to have the vote on the GOP's legislation.

"It's the help Paris Hilton legislation," he said. "It would give people like her a tax break for doing nothing — $46 billion of the American people's money to help Paris Hilton and others."

Mr. McConnell said he was just trying to get senators on record so voters could see which senators supported the president and which supported the broader tax cut.

"The Senate should make itself clear which policy it supports. This is our chance to do it," he said."

".....but Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, essentially sidelining the president's plan.

Dems block Obama's tax-cut bill - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jul/11/dems-block-obamas-tax-cut-bill/)

No, its the right thing to do and not politics....right !! Illegal immigration speech...right thing to do..right, and NO way to enforce what he said...guess he forgot about that !

These quotes are a prime example as to how and why hyperbolic statements from congress are worthless. I mean thinking out of the box is one thing but boxing in thinking is quite another