Honestly, who do YOU blame for the Recession?
Options
Comments
-
the thing is, it's not ONLY the tax cuts aimed at the very rich that are costing the massive amounts of money he's supposedly trying to recover.
The tax cuts for the middle class pale in comparison to the tax cuts for the rich. The tax cuts for the middle class is being paid for by program cuts and streamlining. Rich people don't need any more favors because you can't compare their plight with the evaporating middle class.let me restate: if you SUPPORT the tax cuts for, say, the middle class, you can't then claim those same tax cuts are something you gave the Republicans as a compromise.
You can if you don't support giving further tax cuts to people making over a certain amount and that is part of your, not bushes policy.this is not an endorsement of whatever Republican tactics; this is saying Obama's support for Bush tax cuts should be seen as Obama's support for Bush tax cuts.
for people making $250,000 in annual personal income right? Which is what this is about.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
I ain't gone sit up and act like I'm a political head but I think Bush 2nd and the banking industry are responsible for the recession that America is in. Bush wasted billions over in Iraq over a pointless war when they could had used that money to produce more jobs. The banking industry should had have a lot of prosecutions behind the ? they did selling mortgages.
-
missing the point in that the tax cuts for the middle class are still the BUSH TAX CUTS that you're claiming Obama doesn't support. he supports the vast majority of the BUSH TAX CUTS.FuriousOne wrote: »The tax cuts for the middle class pale in comparison to the tax cuts for the rich. The tax cuts for the middle class is being paid for by program cuts and streamlining. Rich people don't need any more favors because you can't compare their plight with the evaporating middle class.
but we're not talking about giving further tax cuts, which isn't really the best idea AND which is more the Romney position; we're talking about making a large percentage of the Bush tax cuts extended or permanent or whateverFuriousOne wrote: »You can if you don't support giving further tax cuts to people making over a certain amount and that is part of your, not bushes policy.
if you think that's exactly what this is about, you're missing the point. you have any number of people saying that the Buffett Rule type of maneuver is not going to bring in a large amount of money. it's not what's driving the debt. further, i don't think anyone is really defending how that category is taxed.FuriousOne wrote: »for people making $250,000 in annual personal income right? Which is what this is about.
...but on the other hand, you have several people pointing out that Obama is essentially embracing the Bush tax cuts except for that one category. that is why i keep noting "except when they relate to the very rich." otherwise, he's on board with them, and so it shouldn't be seen as something he's compromising on UNLESS he's about to start saying "i oppose ALL these tax cuts, but i am willing to forget that for the middle class to gain" (whatever thing he gains) -
^^^
When i say further, i meant continued, or further into the future. You can support a part of something but not want the rest. It's not all black and white.
Obama gave the middle class additional tax vouchers, this means he supports tax breaks for the middle class in general no matter who calls for it. Compromise means to accept part or a variation of something and give something in return, so to accept all isn't a compromise.
The Buffet Rule may only raise a certain unappealing amount, but they are willing to cut Food Stamps by a similar amount all in the name of savings. There are other options that can be thrown on the table along with or in place of the Buffet Rule. Of course there are many factors driving the debt, but there isn't much being done to fix anything within reason. -
what i'm getting at is that whether or not you support some small percentage of the Bush tax cuts --in this case, the cuts for the very rich-- you're STILL supporting the rest of the Bush tax cuts if you co-sign them in the way Obama has done. so it's disingenuous of him to talk about the Bush tax cuts in a general way as if he opposes them.FuriousOne wrote: »When i say further, i meant continued, or further into the future. You can support a part of something but not want the rest. It's not all black and white.
well, for some reason i don't think he has to compromise to get tax cuts, because we know the Republicans will always accept them, but to be a little redundant, it's not a compromise for Obama to accept ANY part of the Bush tax cuts he's not opposed to. he WANTS the middle-class tax cuts from the Bush tax cuts? no need to compromise.FuriousOne wrote: »Obama gave the middle class additional tax vouchers, this means he supports tax breaks for the middle class in general no matter who calls for it. Compromise means to accept part or a variation of something and give something in return, so to accept all isn't a compromise.
i mainly mention the Buffet Rule in this "it's basically a trick" context because the only part of the Bush tax cuts Obama opposes aren't really going to do that much. obviously you've got to go beyond it somehow.FuriousOne wrote: »The Buffet Rule may only raise a certain unappealing amount, but they are willing to cut Food Stamps by a similar amount all in the name of savings. There are other options that can be thrown on the table along with or in place of the Buffet Rule. Of course there are many factors driving the debt, but there isn't much being done to fix anything within reason. -
what i'm getting at is that whether or not you support some small percentage of the Bush tax cuts --in this case, the cuts for the very rich-- you're STILL supporting the rest of the Bush tax cuts if you co-sign them in the way Obama has done. so it's disingenuous of him to talk about the Bush tax cuts in a general way as if he opposes them.
It's short hand and everybody knows what he's getting at. He always mentioned that he doesn't support and extension for The Rich. The media actually call it the Bush Tax Cuts for The Rich. In every article, the Rich is mentioned. So how is he claiming everything when he always only supported the middle class?well, for some reason i don't think he has to compromise to get tax cuts, because we know the Republicans will always accept them, but to be a little redundant, it's not a compromise for Obama to accept ANY part of the Bush tax cuts he's not opposed to. he WANTS the middle-class tax cuts from the Bush tax cuts? no need to compromise.
Actually, he did. He had to compromise to get an extension on tax cuts for the middle class because republicans wanted to end it. They only think of the Rich as deserving of cuts because you know, they're "job creators". The republicans also tried to tie the keystone pipeline to the cut and it was only extended for 6months rather then a year. The compromise i speak of though is for the Rich tax cuts but both positions have been negotiated with a unreasonable congress who even attempted to create an artificial dept ceiling that almost shut down government.i mainly mention the Buffet Rule in this "it's basically a trick" context because the only part of the Bush tax cuts Obama opposes aren't really going to do that much. obviously you've got to go beyond it somehow.
It wasn't intended as a trick. It just didn't work out to the degree that Obama intended but it can be adjusted to do more. It's not like the Republicans would allow it anyway. Republicans have yet to create anything that would do anything or even properly discuss what's on the table.
-
I'm gonna blame the financial system which is based on speculation rather than actual value.
-
first off, i appreciate you skipping right over the part where you pretend to discuss the topic and cutting right to the part where you reveal your inability to pose a real argument by resorting to personal attacks. second, if you're going to attack someone's intellect, you should PROBABLY not do it in a post where you use the word "complexed."SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »Janklow just doesn't understand it becuz he's never had real money before ... He doesn't understand the definition of a POLITICIAN or the basis of POLITICS. ... you're right and I had caught onto that aswell, he thinks everything is so Black and White like that, when in reality it's very complexed and sophisticated. America isn't like any other Country in the world. Now each Country has its own uniqueness about em but we're just on a different level of the game.
now, on to actual posters:
missing the point. it's not about claiming EVERYTHING, it's about claiming to oppose the Bush Tax Cuts when you're supporting 95% of them (or whatever the specific non-rich percentage is).FuriousOne wrote: »It's short hand and everybody knows what he's getting at. He always mentioned that he doesn't support and extension for The Rich. The media actually call it the Bush Tax Cuts for The Rich. In every article, the Rich is mentioned. So how is he claiming everything when he always only supported the middle class?
if we're talking about the Bush tax cuts, no, the Republicans did not want to end them; their position has LONG been to make them permanent. THAT is not a compromise. now, i know many Republicans want ADDITIONAL tax cuts for the "job creators," which, frankly, is a term/concept i am really tired of hearing from them. but what i'm talking about is the former.FuriousOne wrote: »Actually, he did. He had to compromise to get an extension on tax cuts for the middle class because republicans wanted to end it. They only think of the Rich as deserving of cuts because you know, they're "job creators".
frankly, i think EVERYONE'S being unreasonable; it's just that the GOP runs the House in the fashion they do.FuriousOne wrote: »The republicans also tried to tie the keystone pipeline to the cut and it was only extended for 6months rather then a year. The compromise i speak of though is for the Rich tax cuts but both positions have been negotiated with a unreasonable congress who even attempted to create an artificial dept ceiling that almost shut down government.
it can't be adjusted to do much more because it doesn't address what really fuels the debt. it's a political trick because it puts the Republicans in the position of defending turbo-rich dudes with tax rates that strike the average American as unfair while not ACTUALLY doing much of anything to address the debt.FuriousOne wrote: »It wasn't intended as a trick. It just didn't work out to the degree that Obama intended but it can be adjusted to do more. It's not like the Republicans would allow it anyway. Republicans have yet to create anything that would do anything or even properly discuss what's on the table.
if you want to say it's not a trick because it CAN do something concrete, albeit on a small scale, yes, okay, it's not a total illusion or anything.
-
see, that's what i'm talking about: FuriousOne and i are debating the topic, and you feel left out and so you have to act out. really, though, if you're not following us, move on to reading another thread and stop trolling for attention.SawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »^^^ dude just stop reaching. everybody stopped reading your ? along time ago. most people on here just aren't that dumb
-
smh @ the name dropping. I'm good with this thread ? . You the only one in here arguing now.
-
I think at least in part, the materialism and vanity that the nation's leaders had allowed to pollute the minds of its old and young as well as the selfish individualistic attitudes and lifestyles that are promoted by influential individuals are largely to blame.
If people were not only looking out for themselves then maybe powerful people would be creating more jobs in the private sector to benefit others. But this greed filled and overly self motivated lifestyle that is prevalent in so many of the affluent individuals of the nation dictates that they try to save as much as they can, well up into the billions and beyond, despite the fact that this negatively impacts those less fortunate (particularly the working classes). -
thank you for confirming that you're not actually reading the threadSawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »I don't feel left out and u aren't debating anything.
you should PROBABLY add some substance to your posts before you run with thisSawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »U don't wanna debate, you just want attention.
ah, more misconceptionsSawedOff-N-SkiMask wrote: »@Janklow hasn't looked into Obama's Presidency (or even what the role of Congress and the President is), all he's doing is reading what everybody else on the other side says, the same people who'd rather see a bullet in his head than have him drinking a cup of water. I guess dude's in school working on a Communications degree, that's all I can think of.
well, you know, we've probably said our piece, so PERHAPS i should resolve this thread before it becomes more of another poster feeling badlyFuriousOne wrote: »smh @ the name dropping. I'm good with this thread ? . You the only one in here arguing now.
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
This discussion has been closed.