Obama Supporters

[Daracus]

The people have SPOKEN! Let's move on.

[savak]

Originally Posted by Rossboss

Let me know where you live and I'll be right over to bitch slap your dumb ass

better luck next time comrade.

[lasvegas]

yes... they are losers... 47% of american households are on some type of assistance... ummm..that would be correct. if the hispanics women black whites are on that much of assistance , then yes you are correct with what you have read...lol

but here is the big lie that he told them... they ALL will be included in raising taxes... from families with 2 children or more... $4K and 2% income tax increase...so it looks like all the above mention will give that canned response...its cheaper to stay home and collect welfare...

[bushmasterM4]

BTW how do you like all the massive layoff announcements and stock market losses over just the past 3 days. Most business were waiting until after the election on making these annoucements hoping that the election would go the other way. But now with Obamacare a reality they are cutting their work force and looking at moving employees from full time to part-time.

Forget about saving america, it is gone.
I say we need a massive reset. let the whole thing fall apart. LET it burn. -why not? no one cares about the constitution or the founding principles. Most people cant even list the branches of government or name the vice-president.
Who cares about gay marriage when you are unemployed
Who cares about abortion -most kids are worthless POS anyway-oh yeah here in BEXAR county I have to pay extra sales tax to give pre-k education to some idiot kids whose own parents are too stupid to do it for them- I am sure it will do no damn good in reducing all the wannbe thugs and tattooed little whores walking around here in SA already.

FUCK THIS!


When is it supposed to get better? Is this what you wanted?

[Daracus]

LMMAO!

[MsPrittiKitti]

Ignorance at its finest.
"Never argue w a fool. Bc from a distance you cant tell whos who"

[bushmasterM4]

Ok, can any Obama supporter explain to me in logical terms how Obama is a better choice to deal with the current economic crisis.

[Rossboss]

I'm with you Bushmaster. I guess some people just have to go to the school of hard knocks. Problem is, they sleep through that class also. Dumb Jay-walking automatons.

[MsPrittiKitti]

I couldnt tell you. I choose to keep my political thoughts to myself.
No need trying to debate it. The people chose. Its already happened. Its over. Whether anyone likes it or not, hes OUR president. And last i checked, jayz quoted someone else

[Nutting Buckeye]

America has spoken. Let us unite and move FORWARD.
CONGRATULATIONS President Barack Obama!
GOD Bless America!

[MsPrittiKitti]

Exactly buckeye!! Cant do anything about it now.
Folks should be happy he "only" gets 2 terms.
Imagine if there wasnt that limitation.

[barnybus]

Look. Normally I let political comments go by without posting, but I can see that some folks are really put out by the election. Therefore, I will explain why I supported the President:

First: Let us get something straight about the 47% number -- That is the number of people whom pay no INCOME tax. These folks still pay for FICA, Medicare, Local and State Taxes and the rest. Therefore, to say that the 47% do not contribute to the funding of the government is completely false. The 47% just doesn't earn enough money to pay income taxes.

Second: One could earn between $40-50K and still not make enough to pay income taxes. Folks -- this is the amount of money a full time worker earns whom is paid 20-25$ per hour. Last I checked, that is a good wage for a middle class job. Recent college graduates barely make this much money.

Third: The reason that a middle class individual can make 40-50K a year and not pay income tax is that the Bush Tax Cuts provided a child credit and a mortgage interest deduction. These are two of the 3 most generous tax breaks out there (the third is the health care tax exemption).

Fourth: There is a term for people living on government entitlements --> Senior Citizens. The vast majority of entitlement spending is on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Only 5% or so goes to traditional Welfare programs and most of that money is for Unemployment insurance -- which every worker pays into (including the so-called 47% of free-loaders)

So, let's stop with the "47% of the people don't contribute" meme, shall we?

Now, what is the real difference between the party's economic plans:

1) The Romney/Ryan plan called for massive "revenue-neutral" tax cuts for the upper income brackets. Perserving the Bush Tax cuts indefinitely. Turning Medicare into a voucher system for people under 50. Increased Defense spending to be at least 4% of GDP(a huge spending increase) and cap the rest of government to 16% GDP(a massive hit on Senior Citizens)

2) The Obama plan -- raise taxes on those making over 250K. Maintain the status quo otherwise.

So why support the president?

1) Because I believe we have an obligation to our seniors and that we must honor that.
2) I am under 50 and I happen to make pretty good money. Therefore, under the Ryan Plan, I would be screwed when it comes to paying for health care in retirement.
3) The Romney tax cuts are unsustainable -- taxes are currently lower than they have been at any time since WWII. We cannot afford more tax cuts - period.
4) Austerity doesn't work -- look at Britain versus the U.S. since the recession hit. I'm glad we live here!

Look, I realize other people have different points of view, but this is where I am coming from...I'm interested in having constructive dialogue, but if you wish to engage in a debate let's talk facts rather than hurl epithets.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by bushmasterM4

Ok, can any Obama supporter explain to me in logical terms how Obama is a better choice to deal with the current economic crisis.

Sure, the crisis is not really all that much of a crisis in the first place except for the group psychological fear factor. After all it was Dick Cheney who said, "deficits don't matter" and though I wouldn't agree with him 100%, I have studied modern macro-economics and monetary realism and he is factually correct.

#1 - We are not bankrupt and cannot go bankrupt unless we choose to do so.
#2 - The two things we have to keep an eye on are employment (try to get back to full employment) and inflation. So far Ben Bernanke has done a good job of that mostly and Obama will keep him.
#3 - Our biggest risk is to try austerity like the Europeans (who have been thrown back into a recession) and Obama will not cut the public sector radically before we are back to full employment and more than 3-4% GDP growth.

Also, after the last two significant recessions 70% of our recovery was driven by the autoindustry and housing. This last recession of 2007 was worse than the previous bad ones and only 10% of the recovery so far has been due to the housing sector, but Obama did make it possible for the auto industry to come back and now housing is coming back and should supply most of an addittonal 50 to 60% to the recovery going forward.

Finally, I think Romney would have been more focused on helping Wall St. and the 1% than Obama (though Obama and Dems are rather subsurvient to Wall St as are the Republicans) but Obama will focus more on the middle class than Romney would have and will not get rid of regulation again. I strongly believe that when Main St. does will Wall St. will too rather than the other way around and I think Obama will be much better for Main St.

Just my 2 cents.

[Rossboss]

Omg.
1)The 47% contribute, just not income taxes? All we are talking about is income taxes in that sentence. Saying a thief pays sales tax doesn't mean he's a contributor to society.
2) the Romney tax cuts?? That's the existing taxes in place now. Sheesh.
3) we can't go bankrupt unless we choose to???? Click your heels three times and say that over and over. Look at California for Gods sake.
4) Obama made it possible for the auto industry to come back. Damn, you must like anal to fit your head that far up. He saved the Union contracts, that's all. There was NO circumstance where the factories would've been shuttered. None. He nationalized the industry to save his voting block. Sounds like some south American dictators.

Wow, and you two sound almost rational.

[barnybus]

RB,

1) As I stated, 47% pay payroll taxes and whatnot. 47% pay no income tax due to the Bush Tax cuts. Again -- one can make 40k-50k per year and not pay income tax. Moreover, Payroll taxes, which the 47% do pay, fund half the government. Therefore, the term "thief" is inappropriate. If your suggestion is that we should raise taxes on people making less than 40k per year -- then say so.

2) No -- Romney proposed making a "revenue-neutral" tax adjustment. Romney proposed lowering the top marginal rates and closing the loop-holes for deductions in the upper tax brackets. So -- aside from the mathematical impossibility of his plan (the proposed cut in top rates could NOT be offset by the elimination of deductions) -- this represents a huge tax increase for some people; mostly, those executives whom "work" for a living versus those whom "invest" for a living.

#3 -- California has the largest economy in the nation. The only reason they can't balance their budget is that it takes 51% of the population to vote for spending increases, but 67% of the population to vote for increased taxation. That 16% in the middle is what screws them!

As for #4 -- Romney proposed letting GM and Chrysler go bankrupt completely and let private investors find the money to take the companies through liquidation. Unfortunately, during the time of the financial crisis, even reputable companies couldn't find credit. Without the intervention of the government as a lender of last resort, those companies would have failed. Furthermore, Ford, by itself, could not manage the entire auto industry because the U.S. auto industry is not vertically integrated. In other words, GM, Ford and Chrysler all use the same suppliers and those suppliers would have gone bankrupt too. When the government intervened, they were trying to save those jobs as well.

Now, a question for you RB: would you have bailed out Wall Street or not?