We're all losers now
CNBC conducted a poll asking people if they thought they would be a winner or loser with Obama's current proposed budget. The result? Last time I looked, 72% of the respondents (out of 15198) thought they would be losers. I would say it will be closer to 100% before this is all over.
posted by Helen at 8:29 PM
28 Comments:
I just heard that taxing the top 2% of wage earners, that is those making over $250,000, at 100% would not pay for HALF on the budget proposed by the President. Taxing everyone who makes $75,000 or more at 100% would not pay for it either, not even within 1 trillion.
And those figures are based on the bad old Bush days of 2006. You think earning is going down? Just a bit?
This is madness.
Trey
Saving the economy by only "taxing the rich" is like cutting cost on a cruise ship by only shutting down the engine room. The "rich" are still gonna live nicely. It is the people who depend on the rich for their sales and payroll that will suffer the most.
Cue Beck.
Disclaimer: when he recorded this song, the First Amendment allowed you to say "In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey" without having the "racist" sticker slapped on you. Happy days.
Madness.
That about sums it up perfectly, Trey.
Obama got elected largely by running on President Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. Bush's deficits included September 11 costs, the temporary costs of two wars against middle eastern millitants/tyrants, and the probably permanent (unfortunately) costs of the Department of Homeland Security. Some of it wasn't his fault, but Bush did spend too much in 8 years.
After campaigning by criticizing 8 years of Bush, Obama is positioned to jack up the deficit more on domestic and (permanent) entitlement programs in 8 weeks than Bush did in 8 years. And he wants to add immigrants who never paid into such programs onto the government gravy train, even though we don't have the money. Mostly to solidify power by creating more dependants--who are loyal voters. Absurd.
Of course, the general media (indistinguishable from Obama's PR team) won't call him on it.
I've refrained from attacking Obama personally, but I must confess, my drink about came through my nose when I read Rachel Lucas call him "Obama Christ Superstar." The media sure acts like he's the second coming, and that we must have faith even though what he does makes little sense to us mere mortals.
Madness. That's probably the best word in the dictionary for it, albiet a tragic understatement.
OK, so if the Bush administration spent like drunken sailors, and they did, what is our current President suggesting we spend like?
Bitter spouses?
Manic street preachers on a crack high?
Your suggestions please.
Trey
@TMink said... "OK, so if the Bush administration spent like drunken sailors, and they did, what is our current President suggesting we spend like?"
______
He's spending like a wife scorned with a credit card?
He's spending like a drunken John Edwards in a beauty shop?
I agree with the sentiment but does a poll with self-selected respondents really count for much?
This is madness.
*channels King Leonidas*
No. This is Obamanation!
I have lost track (and I am someone who actually pays attention) of all the bailouts and what the grand total of the obama spending spree is thus far. But when you look at all that is proposed: increased taxes, carbon caps, card check, it seems as though they are deliberately trying to destroy America. When will Atlas shrug?
I wonder who are the 18% who think they are winners. Probably a cross between bailout recipients and those who live off the government dole.
Soccer Dad - polls like this one are not considered scientifically valid.
ACORN should consider themselves winners. Union leadership should as well. Federal employees sure have some job security too. But even they are not feeling the love as over 40% of our wage earners are employed in govment jobs. It may be slightly over 50%.
Trey
all the badmouthing expected. Fact: the spending is to fix (or try to) what has gone wrong because of the huge deficit built up...now you blame the spending as adding to it...what do you suggest instead? cut taxes cut taxes cut taxes? been there and done that and it did not work.
is America better off sat time of election than it was 21 years ago? Are you better off (check house value and your stocks) then 4 years ago?
sure you want to blame all on Obama, who is trying to fix the mess that you supported!
Will he make it worse? we will see in the months to come...not today! If McCain were president, what would he have done?
McCain is socialism lite, we would have gotten here eventually just not at the lightening speed we've seen with the bamster.
I think most business owners and all the people they were able to hire and all the people getting goods and services at a lower cost would agree that the tax cuts under Reagan did work....Of course if you are a socialist and your goal is to take over more and more of peoples individual rights and destroy freedom then no, tax cuts don't work for you. Getting as many people as possible dependant on government handouts works for you.
I am interested not in what is presently taking place but in the near future. What, I wonder, should the Democrats and Obama succeed in fixing the economy will his loyal opposition be likely to say?
Best guess: It was a typical business cycle and had we done nothing whatsoever things would have become better. We have seen that response in earlier difficult economic times.
Of course if the Obama plan does not work, then the nation and all of us will be in still deeper trouble. Is that what we should hope for so we can be vindicated?
It was a typical business cycle and had we done nothing whatsoever things would have become better.
This is what the Congressional Budget Office says.
When we get out of this mess, will Obama and team claim credit even if their actions hindered recovery or had no effect? You can bet on it.
I call bullshit on these issue polls. They all shows huge distrust of big government, yet Obama gets 70% approval ratings.
Is the BS thise polls or the 70% approval ratings, you dont seem to questions them at all.
The most relevant polls were the Presidential and Congressional elections. 52% for Obama, 53% for the Dems in the House and 59% for the Dems in the Senate. Overall I'd call that a clear mandata for radical left-wing socialism. That's where the country is right now.
Actually the Congressional elections were thus:
House, 53% of the popular vote, 59% of the seats.
Senate, 51.3% of the popular vote, 59% of the seats.
Obama won 53% of the popular vote and 68% of the electoral college.
This country has truly moved into the dark ages of socialism.
nathan,
We're criticizing Obama's policies. That is not to say we want the economy to fail with millions hurt to make us right. It is to say we believe the policies will do more harm than good and would rather scrutinize before they are implemented if it is possible to stop them.
If you want to hear badmouthing, and I mean nasty personal illogical badmouthing, run over to a liberal blog and mention George W. Bush. We're quite mild and respectful by comparison.
This is not your typical economic downturn. It's the inevitable result of over-building, over-producing, and over-leveraging.
The entire world is awash in debt. So now the only solution is to pay off the debt, take the losses and get back to what's real.
I fail to see how spending more money that we don't have will get us out of this mess. Those of you who read Michael Panzer (www.financialarmageddon.com) understand that.
As for Obama, he's a joke. And not a good one at that.
GawainsGhost,
Both parties are equally responsible for this messy debt. At least Ralph Nader would have focused on paying down the debt by cutting back on tax cuts and loopholes for the corporate/wealthy elite and gotten rid of all that worthless war spending. Even Ron Paul and Bob Barr have the brains to figure this much out. Then again, if the Republican Party were filled with more Ron Pauls, I'd come back to the party.
And to the folks complaining about socialism, you've been stuck with 28 years of corporate socialism and yet I fail to see how you accept that socialism. And don't get me started with both parties socializing poverty and terrorism in the last 8 years. If you all wanted a real conservative who was actually kind, consistent, and honest, you all should have voted for Ron Paul in the primaries like I did. Too bad you got stuck with a clutzy Mccain/Paling ticket. Then again, even Ralph Nader is a real conservative compared to most Rethugs and Demos.
Corporate socialism? Do you just pull definitions out of your "English for Liberals" dictionary? Or are you just making shit up?
News flash: Ralph Nader would be worse than Obama. He'd have zero credibility with congress who would just pass what they already passed. Nader would just stack more of his liberal feel-good bullshit on top of that.
Ron Paul is a nutty hypocrite. He talks the talk but sure as hell doesn't walk the walk--he's just as bad as all the other hypocrites in DC with very few exceptions, like Flake from Arizona.
Yes Joe, corporate socialism. Go read about it and come back when you learn. Besides, Perot in the 1990s and Nader of this decade warned us voters about the fallacies of falling into the "choose between the lesser evils" bullshit and lo behold, they were right. FYI, neither Bushes were anything close to conservative unlike Nixon and Reagan who I used to proudly vote for twice in their times. After getting fed up with both parties, I voted twice for Perot and thrice for Nader and I'm damn proud of it.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
視訊聊天室v6 0視訊聊天室視訊交友90739視訊交友90739視訊交友愛戀之視訊交友高雄網視訊ggo激情網愛ut13077視訊聊天546視訊聊天室546視訊聊天室情色視訊交友情色視訊交友彩虹視訊交友網彩虹視訊交友網視訊女郎視訊女郎尋夢園聊天尋夢園聊天小莉影像館小莉影像館
Post a Comment
<< Home