The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on October 10, 2011, 10:12:31 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/spin-meter-obama-disconnects-rhetoric-reality-081418391.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Barack Obama's sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.
When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.
When the president says Republicans haven't explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.
And when he calls on Congress to "pass this bill now," he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.
To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.
The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans.
He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don't always fit in if they don't help make the case.
For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.
Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama's proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president's proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.
The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president's powers of persuading the public heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans' ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.
"He knows it's not going to pass. He's betting that voters won't pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the 'do-nothing Congress,'" said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development.
John Sides, political science professor at George Washington University, said Obama's approach on the jobs bill is "more about campaigning than governing."
"He's mostly just going around talking about this and drawing contrasts with what the Republicans want and what he wants and not really trying to work these legislative levers he might be able to use to get this passed," Sides said. "That just suggests to me that he is ready to use a failed jobs bill as a campaign message against the Republicans."
The president's opponents aren't exactly laying it all out, either.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to force a vote on the bill last week, innocently claiming that the president was entitled to one. McConnell knew full well that the result would be failure for the legislation and an embarrassment for Obama.
House Speaker John Boehner, meanwhile, claimed that Obama has "given up on the country and decided to campaign full-time" instead of seeking common ground with the GOP. But Boehner neglected to mention that Obama's past attempts at compromise with Republicans often yielded scant results, as Obama himself pointed out.
The approach for Obama, who is seeking a second term in a dismal economy, is far different than the one he took when running for president. He criticized the GOP then, but talked about ending blue-state and red-state America, replacing it with one America, fixing the broken political system, and fundamentally changing Washington.
That ended up being change he could not bring about, and now analysts say Obama may have little choice but to campaign more narrowly by attacking opponents rather than trying to bring people together.
Obama's attempts at compromise with the GOP on the debt ceiling and budget won him little in the way of policy, instead engendering frustration from Democrats who saw him as caving to Republican demands.
The new, combative Obama isn't looking for compromise. He's looking for a win. And if he can't get the legislative victory he says he wants, he has made clear that he's more than willing to take a political win.
It is, he acknowledges, a result his campaign for his jobs bill is designed to achieve.
Talking up the bill in an appearance last month with African-American news websites, Obama said: "I need people to be out there promoting this and pushing this and making sure that everybody understands the details of what this would mean, so that one of two things happen: Either Congress gets it done, or if Congress doesn't get it done, people know exactly what's holding it up."
-
I personally knew this the day he rolled out this bill!
Amazing it takes the media a month to come to the same conclusions.
-
I personally knew this the day he rolled out this bill!
Amazing it takes the media a month to come to the same conclusions.
Why ?
It took them over 2 years to figure out he's an A hole.
A mere month is remarkably quick for the LSM.
-
you know whats sad, there are mostly likly 2 or 3 lines in the bill that are actually good ans should be passed, but instead of just having those 2 or 3 lines, they added all the rest of the crap.
Screw the massive bills crap. you actually want change, make them small and very targeted... that way you can actually do some good rather then just selling our souls to china.
-
Why ?
It took them over 2 years to figure out he's an A hole.
A mere month is remarkably quick for the LSM.
I think they figured it out sooner but they were in denial, still are for the most part! The media is not made up of members of the Mensa Society.
;D
-
you know whats sad, there are mostly likly 2 or 3 lines in the bill that are actually good ans should be passed, but instead of just having those 2 or 3 lines, they added all the rest of the crap.
Screw the massive bills crap. you actually want change, make them small and very targeted... that way you can actually do some good rather then just selling our souls to china.
Then vote for Herman Cain!
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/october_2011/56_of_gop_voters_like_cain_s_9_9_9_tax_reform_plan
Voters aren’t well versed on surging Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” tax reform plan, but most agree that if it becomes law, Congress won’t wait long to raise the tax rates higher.
-
I didn't say I was going to vote for him Tom.
He's touting a max three page bill for Congress and the Senate. Big problem there is that the President doesn't control either one! His bill for a three page bill is DOA!
-
Then vote for Herman Cain!
His 9 9 9 tax plan is enough for me not to vote for him. It will make things worse, it will hurt the poor and help the rich.
I'll vote for the same person I did last election. Who btw came in 3rd in CA and he was write in.
-
His 9 9 9 tax plan is enough for me not to vote for him. It will make things worse, it will hurt the poor and help the rich.
In what way?
-
In what way?
The poor pay no federal tax( infact they normally get more then thier withholding back), under his plan they would pay 9% tax+ the sales tax.
The middle class pays very little federal tax, they would now have to pay 9%
The rich pay about 30% federal tax, that would now become 9%. They would pay less.
Tell me again why this is a good idea?
-
Maybe because we have the richest poor people in the word.They have money for tattoos, gold teeth, diamond ear rings, big screen TV's,better cars than I can afford,etc.etc.
-
TAB, I remember reading some where that the top 10% of earners, the so called "Rich", pay over 75% of tax revenues collected.
Their investment capital also provides about 75% of the money borrowed by people like you who create jobs.
-
Maybe because we have the richest poor people in the word.They have money for tattoos, gold teeth, diamond ear rings, big screen TV's,better cars than I can afford,etc.etc.
you forgot cell phones, cable, and several other simlar services.
drives me nuts.
I love when I'm at a gas station in my 84 ford truck with 460k+ miles on it and I get asked for gas money, you look over and they are driving some 20XX car.
On the cell phone point, I wonder how much the people that actually pay thier cell phone bill is raised by those that don't. we pay just under a grand a month for cell phones( company)
-
Tom I've heard that, but no one has ever explained how they came up with that.
Something else to think about, with a sales tax, the more you consume the more you pay. Sounds great right?
nope, there are tons of professions/trades/industrys out there that consume alot. So now your hurting people( many of which are selfemployeed/small biz owners and even big biz) for thier choice in occupation.
-
Maybe because we have the richest poor people in the word.They have money for tattoos, gold teeth, diamond ear rings, big screen TV's,better cars than I can afford,etc.etc.
Bingo!
My understanding is that 9% is INCOME tax so the poor would pay nothing if they aren't earning their money. The next 9% would be a corporate tax and the last a national income tax of 9% which would replace the state tax which is nearly 7% in the northeast except for NH. An additional 2 or 3% on consumption wouldn't hurt anyone who's not making money or living on assistance. Anything they get is just someone else money anyway. Maybe they would lose a few pounds..
I'm no economist but if you cut the corporate tax from 35% to 9% you WILL CREATE JOBS in the United States!
-
do you really think the states are going to give up thier sales tax?
If so I currently having a sale on beach front property in AZ... cheap and mexican free.
-
do you really think the states are going to give up thier sales tax?
If so I currently having a sale on beach front property in AZ... cheap and mexican free.
No I don't. I never said I agreed with the 9-9-9...just making a point that worrying about the poor, who pay no f*#king tax anyway is what got us to the current mess we're in! Give them a job if you're worried about their welfare!
-
No I don't. I never said I agreed with the 9-9-9...just making a point that worrying about the poor, who pay no f*#king tax anyway is what got us to the current mess we're in! Give them a job if you're worried about their welfare!
So its wrong for me to want to help those that have less then me?
( My net worth is about - 2 mil, any one want to trade? ;) )
Lets be clear, I'm not talking about the leachs. I'm talking about the ones that are trying to make it or have had some bad luck( you know car wreck, get sick, laid off... etc) I'm all for doing what ever I can to help the ones that are trying to help themselfs...
-
So its wrong for me to want to help those that have less then me?
Lets be clear, I'm not talking about the leachs. I'm talking about the ones that are trying to make it or have had some bad luck( you know car wreck, get sick, laid off... etc) I'm all for doing what ever I can to help the ones that are trying to help themselfs...
No I don't have a problem with helping the less fortunate but they are not the majority of the folks on welfare. My wife is disabled, I'm currently unemployed and welfare is the last option, if ever, that I would consider. The folks running the show are making a lower class larger by giving them what they need, not the hand up that would make them self sufficient and not leeching off the rest.
You're an employer, would you hire someone who needed a job to get them off of welfare and train them?
-
No I don't have a problem with helping the less fortunate but they are not the majority of the folks on welfare. My wife is disabled, I'm currently unemployed and welfare is the last option, if ever, that I would consider. The folks running the show are making a lower class larger by giving them what they need, not the hand up that would make them self sufficient and not leeching off the rest.
You're an employer, would you hire someone who needed a job to get them off of welfare and train them?
I have. Long story short, 4 kids, the husband ran off and left them. They lost just about every thing, went on welfare, could not find job. 35 not worked in 15 years, HS diploma, 4 kids, no car... yeah good luck getting a job in this econ. She wanted to work, was willing to do anything. I gave her a chance( my partner didn't want to), she is now a tech makes $18 a hour, moved into a 3 bed duplex. I'm sure its a strech to make ends meet, but she is doing it. Her saying: "I am willing to learn and do anything to make the lives of my children better..." is what got her the shot
-
Good for you!
Charity begins at home! It's not the governments or taxpayers problem!
-
I have. Long story short, 4 kids, the husband ran off and left them. They lost just about every thing, went on welfare, could not find job. 35 not worked in 15 years, HS diploma, 4 kids, no car... yeah good luck getting a job in this econ. She wanted to work, was willing to do anything. I gave her a chance( my partner didn't want to), she is now a tech makes $18 a hour, moved into a 3 bed duplex. I'm sure its a strech to make ends meet, but she is doing it. Her saying: "I am willing to learn and do anything to make the lives of my children better..." is what got her the shot
Very good TAB!! You are a lucky man. Not only did you turn up a good employee, you get to see the result of your kindness. I'd bet you have become a Hero to those folks.
You will do a much better job at picking the winners out of your local pool of those needing help than any state of federal agcency.
-
The thing that sucks about the unemployed is the HR people are not even interested in looking at resumes of the unemployed anymore. Some are actually stating that on their job listings and there is nothing illegal about the practice nor do I think it should be illegal.
The sooner I find a job, the better it will be but we're in such a mess because of the Bolsheviks in D.C. that we'll probably be looking at a long vacation for me. I'm fine for at least a year as my unemployment and my wifes' disability afford me that luxury, after that it's bankruptcy and whatever I need to do to pay what bills I have left. I can live on less than half what I was making and that's what most of us should focus on!
Needs will always come first! Wants are something we can do without...
-
The thing that sucks about the unemployed is the HR people are not even interested in looking at resumes of the unemployed anymore. Some are actually stating that on their job listings and there is nothing illegal about the practice nor do I think it should be illegal.
The sooner I find a job, the better it will be but we're in such a mess because of the Bolsheviks in D.C. that we'll probably be looking at a long vacation for me. I'm fine for at least a year as my unemployment and my wifes' disability afford me that luxury, after that it's bankruptcy and whatever I need to do to pay what bills I have left. I can live on less than half what I was making and that's what most of us should focus on!
Needs will always come first! Wants are something we can do without...
It's a "buyer's market" in jobs and the employer doesn't need to look at what they consider to be "someone's rejects" to find qualified folks looking. Might not seem fair, and maybe not wise since they could be weeding out the best fit for the position, but with every unemployed person who is desperate to find any job, they will be getting a lot of applications from those who are far from qualified. They are trying to shorten the application review time by not accepting all those from the unemployed.
-
It's a "buyer's market" in jobs and the employer doesn't need to look at what they consider to be "someone's rejects" to find qualified folks looking. Might not seem fair, and maybe not wise since they could be weeding out the best fit for the position, but with every unemployed person who is desperate to find any job, they will be getting a lot of applications from those who are far from qualified. They are trying to shorten the application review time by not accepting all those from the unemployed.
True enough!
There is no such thing as "fair" in the business community. I knew this fact before I volunteered to be let go but it was the lesser of two evils. I made a mistake by going to work for the guy a year ago but I got out with a fat unemployment check rather than a kick in the ass or a few nights in jail. I don't even have to accept an offer of re-employment from the asshat because the company I worked for has been closed and no longer in business.
-
The poor pay no federal tax( infact they normally get more then thier withholding back), under his plan they would pay 9% tax+ the sales tax.
Epic fail.
Single earners making $0-$8500 are taxed at 10% now. $8500-34,500 pay 15%.
They would PAY LESS TAXES.
The less they buy, the less they pay in sales taxes and it would be a hell of a lot less than the 1 - 6% difference in their salary withholdings.
The middle class pays very little federal tax, they would now have to pay 9%
Another fail. Do you pull these ideas out of thin air???
$34,500-83,600 pay 25% now. 83,600-174,400 pay 28%. (again, single - married 28% is $139,350 – $212,300)
The rich pay about 30% federal tax, that would now become 9%. They would pay less.
Two working married people making under 140k combined is "rich"? (the above 28% rate)
People making $174,400 – $379,150 are now taxed at 33%.
Single 35% bracket is $379,150+.
These folks will pay less - (along with everyone else) - frees up some money for spending and hiring doesn't it?
Tell me again why this is a good idea?
People will be paying a SMALLER PERCENTAGE of their income. More money to spend = economic growth.
The 9% on sales will get at least something from the leaches that sling dope and buy $30,000 cars with $10,000 stereos but don't have any legal "income" to report. It will also get something from the 12 million illegals living in this country.
Right now we get dick.
Tom I've heard that, but no one has ever explained how they came up with that.
It's very simple - make huge money, pay huge taxes.
The ones that do make the big bucks pay HUGE amounts in taxes compared to those that pay little or nothing. They pay the lions share percentage of what is collected. You can figure out the difference between 10% of not a whole lot and 35% of a LARGE amount.
there are tons of professions/trades/industrys out there that consume alot. So now your hurting people( many of which are selfemployeed/small biz owners and even big biz) for thier choice in occupation.
Cry me a river. Any business that pays taxes has FAILED Business 101.
Business does not pay taxes or operating costs - THE CUSTOMER DOES!!
Any businessman that takes his money out of his pocket to pay business taxes is an idiot closing in on bankrupcy.
-
Kmitch...I'm not arguing with your numbers but my AGI last year was two bucks under 73K and I paid $7,304.00 in federal taxes on my household income. I don't know where you're getting the 25% bracket from. My taxable income was 55K and still not near 25%.
-
Anything that keeps cash out of the governments hands is a good thing. Whoever has it will make better use of it than the government.
I think that 5% income tax for individuals would be sufficient....everyone would save.
$500/mo (or another good number, and maybe another minimum number for utilities) deducted from everyone's income for rent/mortgage payment. No extras for married and number of kids. If you have kids you need to plan how to pay for them ahead of time.
Food is sales tax free.
The low income get the minimum necessities tax free, but they still have to earn it.
The more well to do folks will be taxed on what they spend above those minimums.
-
Kmitch...I'm not arguing with your numbers but my AGI last year was two bucks under 73K and I paid $7,304.00 in federal taxes on my household income. I don't know where you're getting the 25% bracket from. My taxable income was 55K and still not near 25%.
I forgot to ad a link to the site I was looking at, my bad. The numbers in my post are 2011 rates.
This isn't the same site but here is a rate link:
http://www.efile.com/tax-service/tax-calculator/tax-brackets/