The Obama Years- A GOP love story

This conversation started with people making $250000 up and you have now changed it to the ultra rich billionaire to make your points. Sorry but the poor don't drive the economy. If they did we would have poor nations.LOL

Actually the CEO for Hostess Probably worked very hard last year if he earned that bonus is hard to say. His pay is voted on by the stock holders and I'll agree I think most are over paid.


So are you saying the very few wealthy people consume more products and goods than middle class/poor people?

So what you are saying is that 1% of the US population consumes/purchases more goods and products than 99% of the people?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/consumer_report_embargo.pdf



Consumer spending makes up roughly 70 percent of the American economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product.


edit: I went on record saying that I though most people making that 250K were paying their taxes and not using a bunch of tax havens and loopholes to avoid taxes. I even mentioned moving that tax hike up to people who's income hit 1 million.

So are you saying the very few wealthy people consume more products and goods than middle class/poor people?

So what you are saying is that 1% of the US population consumes/purchases more goods and products than 99% of the people?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/consumer_report_embargo.pdf






edit: I went on record saying that I though most people making that 250K were paying their taxes and not using a bunch of tax havens and loopholes to avoid taxes. I even mentioned moving that tax hike up to people who's income hit 1 million.

You have actually said that before and I could agree that people making over a million a year could pay more. That's not what the President is asking and its your thread saying the right is wrong on this issue when you agree with them in part.

Why didn't you start a thread saying Obama was crazy and only should raise taxes on people making 1 mil or more?

If anyone wants the wealthiest to just pay their fair share , you would need to tax their total wealth / assets . Most of the wealthy make under 1 million in salary .... business , real estate , inh. an estate ,ect . Under the Presidents plan, guys like Warren Buffett would not see an increase in taxes , but many small bus. owners , police ( OT ) and a number of dual income families would. taxing people on their net worth would probably work , as would a simple tax code with limited loopholes .

Obama Orders Pay Raise For Congress, Federal Workers, Joe Biden (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/obama-pay-raise-congress_n_2377714.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)



So pitiful you have to laugh at this stage. It would be nice if America got together and marched onto DC to cast out all these bums. Things like this is why I didn't vote for him.


I'm going to have to ask my dad to borrow his t-shirt he got for Christmas.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533834_10151296984691380_684381811_n.jpg

Seriously, **** Obama. Hope he stumps his toe and hurts him the next 4 years. Fiscal cliff coming and this asshole is giving Congress and the feds a raise. A congress that has a 9% approval rating.


http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548174_445325908854913_637918416_n.jpg

King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone (http://www.disinfo.com/2013/01/king-i-have-a-dream-obama-i-have-a-drone/http://)

A simple twist of fate has set President Obama’s second Inaugural Address for January 21, the same day as the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

Obama made no mention of King during the Inauguration four years ago — but since then, in word and deed, the president has done much to distinguish himself from the man who said “I have a dream.”

After his speech at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in August 1963, King went on to take great risks as a passionate advocate for peace.

After his Inaugural speech in January 2009, Obama has pursued policies that epitomize King’s grim warning in 1967: “When scientific power outruns moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men.”

But Obama has not ignored King’s anti-war legacy. On the contrary, the president has gone out of his way to distort and belittle it.

In his eleventh month as president — while escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a process that tripled the American troop levels there — Obama traveled to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech, he cast aspersions on the peace advocacy of another Nobel Peace laureate: Martin Luther King Jr.

The president struck a respectful tone as he whetted the rhetorical knife before twisting. “I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naive — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King,” he said, just before swiftly implying that those two advocates of nonviolent direct action were, in fact, passive and naive. “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” Obama added.

Moments later, he was straining to justify American warfare: past, present, future. “To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason,” Obama said. “I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.”

Then came the jingo pitch: “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”

Crowing about the moral virtues of making war while accepting a peace prize might seem a bit odd, but Obama’s rhetoric was in sync with a key dictum from Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

Laboring to denigrate King’s anti-war past while boasting about Uncle Sam’s past (albeit acknowledging “mistakes,” a classic retrospective euphemism for carnage from the vantage point of perpetrators), Obama marshaled his oratory to foreshadow and justify the killing yet to come under his authority.

Two weeks before the start of Obama’s second term, the British daily The Guardian noted that “U.S. use of drones has soared during Obama’s time in office, with the White House authorizing attacks in at least four countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. It is estimated that the CIA and the U.S. military have undertaken more than 300 drone strikes and killed about 2,500 people.”

The newspaper reported that a former member of Obama’s “counter-terrorism group” during the 2008 campaign, Michael Boyle, says the White House is now understating the number of civilian deaths due to the drone strikes, with loosened standards for when and where to attack: “The consequences can be seen in the targeting of mosques or funeral processions that kill non-combatants and tear at the social fabric of the regions where they occur. No one really knows the number of deaths caused by drones in these distant, sometimes ungoverned, lands.”

Although Obama criticized the Bush-era “war on terror” several years ago, Boyle points out, President Obama “has been just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as his predecessor.”

Boyle’s assessment — consistent with the conclusions of many other policy analysts — found the Obama administration’s use of drones is “encouraging a new arms race that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent.”

In recent weeks, more than 50,000 Americans have signed a petition to Ban Weaponized Drones from the World. The petition says that “weaponized drones are no more acceptable than land mines, cluster bombs or chemical weapons.” It calls for President Obama “to abandon the use of weaponized drones, and to abandon his ‘kill list’ program regardless of the technology employed.”

Count on lofty rhetoric from the Inaugural podium. The spirit of Dr. King will be elsewhere.

Sen. Paul to Sec. Clinton: I would have relieved you of your post - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sen-paul-to-sec-clinton-i-would-have-relieved-you-of-your-post/2013/01/23/e691e5bc-6578-11e2-b84d-21c7b65985ee_video.html)


Senator Paul (the other one) drills Clinton pretty good about Benghazi. I agree with him totally. I like how she played coy about the gun shipping question.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/391214_213745252084034_64904759_n.jpg

Sen. Paul to Sec. Clinton: I would have relieved you of your post - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sen-paul-to-sec-clinton-i-would-have-relieved-you-of-your-post/2013/01/23/e691e5bc-6578-11e2-b84d-21c7b65985ee_video.html)


Senator Paul (the other one) drills Clinton pretty good about Benghazi. I agree with him totally. I like how she played coy about the gun shipping question.

BS, Hilary did one hell of a job!



"Hillary Kicked Republican Buttocks Today" - YouTube

Roxanne Rubin, Nevada Republican, Accepts Plea Deal After Committing Voter Fraud (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/roxanne-rubin_n_2566297.html)

Her voting rights should be stripped from her as well.