I’m not going to be able to watch tonight’s debate until tomorrow probably =[
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Beans: What can I say…I age quickly lol. Good point about the spin on taxes-often times deductions that many can take are spun in such a way since they scale with income.
ZEB: I agree with what you have said in the most recent post-Obama/Dems cannot win without this constituency. It’s the same way the Republicans would have trouble without the evangelical christian vote (look at Newt Gingrich finding religion in the primary for instance). Both parties have their constituencies that they lean on and could not win without. It was the insinuation that Dems want to keep people this way that I disagree with. While the welfare class may support them, I do not believe that they want to keep them there-frankly, I don’t believe any large group can be evil enough to want that. However, because again, people are people, that class will always exist IMO.[/quote]
I would agree with you regarding most democrats. But if Obama is reelected watch what happens to the unemployment, welfare, food stamps and all of the other government programs. I really think that Obama is trying to make more people dependent on government. Look into his history and you may agree with me.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I really think that Obama is trying to make more people dependent on government. Look into his history and you may agree with me.[/quote]
Hey, you can’t say that! That’s off the table. What are ya? Some kind of conspiracy nut? Obama’s just like every other president only better…with the possible exception of Lincoln, Truman and Johnson.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Beans: What can I say…I age quickly lol. Good point about the spin on taxes-often times deductions that many can take are spun in such a way since they scale with income.
ZEB: I agree with what you have said in the most recent post-Obama/Dems cannot win without this constituency. It’s the same way the Republicans would have trouble without the evangelical christian vote (look at Newt Gingrich finding religion in the primary for instance). Both parties have their constituencies that they lean on and could not win without. It was the insinuation that Dems want to keep people this way that I disagree with. While the welfare class may support them, I do not believe that they want to keep them there-frankly, I don’t believe any large group can be evil enough to want that. However, because again, people are people, that class will always exist IMO.[/quote]
I would agree with you regarding most democrats. But if Obama is reelected watch what happens to the unemployment, welfare, food stamps and all of the other government programs. I really think that Obama is trying to make more people dependent on government. Look into his history and you may agree with me.[/quote]
I have heard this “history” and “association” argument time and time again and it is frankly getting tiring. IMO if somebody really wanted to boost the number of people unemployed, on welfare, on food stamps, etc they would have let the economy continue to tank during the recession at the rate it was and that would have been the end of it. Why bother passing a stimulus (and push for a bigger one-as most economists are saying it should have been now)-thing were going right down the road he wanted!
I am sorry- I realize I have been sarcastic in this post, but I really just think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
I have heard this “history” and “association” argument time and time again and it is frankly getting tiring. IMO if somebody really wanted to boost the number of people unemployed, on welfare, on food stamps, etc they would have let the economy continue to tank during the recession at the rate it was and that would have been the end of it. Why bother passing a stimulus (and push for a bigger one-as most economists are saying it should have been now)-thing were going right down the road he wanted!
[/quote]
I could offer a reason why he did that and still be hardline pushing cloward-piven but I won’t. Mainly because the people that agree with me already get why he would have done those things, and the people that don’t, will think I’m playing conspiracy theory…
But yeah, the answer to your questions are straight forward.
As for the “bigger stimulus” argument. It is literally going to take a complete global meltdown (EU anyone) before people stop sucking on the tit of the likes of Krugman and his hero Keynes.
I’m now convinced that one of the debates should be in rap battle format.
Gee, I wonder who that might favor? =D
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’m now convinced that one of the debates should be in rap battle format. [/quote]
LOL
It would have been even funnier if the guy playing Romney had been able to imitate him.
The obama imitation was good, he was even able to do the stuttering right.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Beans: What can I say…I age quickly lol. Good point about the spin on taxes-often times deductions that many can take are spun in such a way since they scale with income.
ZEB: I agree with what you have said in the most recent post-Obama/Dems cannot win without this constituency. It’s the same way the Republicans would have trouble without the evangelical christian vote (look at Newt Gingrich finding religion in the primary for instance). Both parties have their constituencies that they lean on and could not win without. It was the insinuation that Dems want to keep people this way that I disagree with. While the welfare class may support them, I do not believe that they want to keep them there-frankly, I don’t believe any large group can be evil enough to want that. However, because again, people are people, that class will always exist IMO.[/quote]
I would agree with you regarding most democrats. But if Obama is reelected watch what happens to the unemployment, welfare, food stamps and all of the other government programs. I really think that Obama is trying to make more people dependent on government. Look into his history and you may agree with me.[/quote]
I have heard this “history” and “association” argument time and time again and it is frankly getting tiring. IMO if somebody really wanted to boost the number of people unemployed, on welfare, on food stamps, etc they would have let the economy continue to tank during the recession at the rate it was and that would have been the end of it. Why bother passing a stimulus (and push for a bigger one-as most economists are saying it should have been now)-thing were going right down the road he wanted!
I am sorry- I realize I have been sarcastic in this post, but I really just think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
[/quote]
You don’t have to look at the history of Obama any longer. He now has a well defined shitty record to match his past. The stimulus you speak of did nothing but hand money to his contributors and various unions. I read exactly where the money was going when it came out and I was shocked.
Furthermore, what he wants to do takes two terms. The first term is the warm up with national health care being the focus. That makes more people dependent on government. The second term is the icing on the cake with no electorate to answer to.
1- Unemployment will top 10% to 12%
2- We will enter a recession that makes the last one look like an economic boon
3- We will be involved in a war as the Middle Eastern tyrants look at Obama as a Woman (very macho culture).
4- Debt will top 20 trillion.
5- 60 million people on food stamps
I wish there was a way that, should the chosen one actually get reelected, that you would remember my many predictions. But this is the Internet and I’m sure you won’t even be around posting by the time this all happens. But…IT WILL HAPPEN!
Once again, all you have to do is stop listening to what he’s saying and look at what he’s done to know that I’m right.
Hopefully Mitt Romney will win and we won’t have to worry about impending doom.
Edit: If I am wrong and he is actually trying to help the US to return an economic power then he is absolutely the worst President in modern tmies!