This was quote from SENATOR BARACK H. OBAMA, MARCH, 2006 just before he voted against increasing the debt ceiling.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its
own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.

Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

You Republicans are beginning to sound like a broken record. If you cant differentiate between a symbolic vote against increasing the debt limit vs the situation we have now, God help you. The debt ceiling is a perfect issue for a symbolic vote. It is innapropraite to actually destroy the economy.

niggers

YA DA -YA DA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You Republicans are beginning to sound like a
> broken record. If you cant differentiate between
> a symbolic vote against increasing the debt limit
> vs the situation we have now, God help you. The
> debt ceiling is a perfect issue for a symbolic
> vote. It is innapropraite to actually destroy the
> economy.

What economy? The one roaring along at 1.8%GDP? 17% real unemployment? Double digit real inflation?

What is happening here is crystal clear. Obama knows there is no chance for economic recovery by election time. His strategy is to construct an argument blaming Republicans for short circuiting his recovery and make us believe it was well underway until the debt ceiling thing or whatever and to try and split Tea Party voters from the republican party to a third party candidate.

Economically you may get what you want anyway because it may be too late.

http://online.wsj.com/video/dan-henninger-the-disappearing-recovery/23AB4559-2FA8-4E9D-9B43-F8DFDD01E9CF.html

If you dont think the economy can get a lot worse then it is today, you should run for Congress as a Republican, you'd fit right in.

Nixon Now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YA DA -YA DA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You Republicans are beginning to sound like a
> > broken record. If you cant differentiate
> between
> > a symbolic vote against increasing the debt
> limit
> > vs the situation we have now, God help you.
> The
> > debt ceiling is a perfect issue for a symbolic
> > vote. It is innapropraite to actually destroy
> the
> > economy.
>
> What economy? The one roaring along at 1.8%GDP?
> 17% real unemployment? Double digit real
> inflation?
>
> What is happening here is crystal clear. Obama
> knows there is no chance for economic recovery by
> election time. His strategy is to construct an
> argument blaming Republicans for short circuiting
> his recovery and make us believe it was well
> underway until the debt ceiling thing or whatever
> and to try and split Tea Party voters from the
> republican party to a third party candidate.
>
> Economically you may get what you want anyway
> because it may be too late.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/video/dan-henninger-the-disa
> ppearing-recovery/23AB4559-2FA8-4E9D-9B43-F8DFDD01
> E9CF.html

Fuck this loser half breed negro. He is the ultimater spin master. What do you expect from a community organizer.

Washington is dysfunctional. And to paraphrase the president's senior adviser, David Plouffe, Mr. Obama owns the dysfunction. The president has not only governed as a liberal—he's governed as an incompetent liberal, thereby reminding voters that electing a Republican Congress and president next year is the only way to change direction.

YA DA -YA DA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You Republicans are beginning to sound like a
> broken record. If you cant differentiate between
> a symbolic vote against increasing the debt limit
> vs the situation we have now, God help you. The
> debt ceiling is a perfect issue for a symbolic
> vote. It is innapropraite to actually destroy the
> economy.

Amen. When did the Republican party become such a freak zone?

The Republican party I knew made sense and had clear cut goals.

Obama Advisor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Washington is dysfunctional. And to paraphrase the
> president's senior adviser, David Plouffe, Mr.
> Obama owns the dysfunction. The president has not
> only governed as a liberal—he's governed as an
> incompetent liberal, thereby reminding voters that
> electing a Republican Congress and president next
> year is the only way to change direction.

Nice try. Which one of your ding bat candidates can beat him? Answer: none. The answer is to punish the Republican cult. Put them back on their heels. Put Dems in charge.

Nice Try Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama Advisor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Washington is dysfunctional. And to paraphrase
> the
> > president's senior adviser, David Plouffe, Mr.
> > Obama owns the dysfunction. The president has
> not
> > only governed as a liberal—he's governed as
> an
> > incompetent liberal, thereby reminding voters
> that
> > electing a Republican Congress and president
> next
> > year is the only way to change direction.
>
> Nice try. Which one of your ding bat candidates
> can beat him? Answer: none. The answer is to
> punish the Republican cult. Put them back on
> their heels. Put Dems in charge.

Which one could beat him?

Currently a cheerleader. therefore just about anyone on the Rep. side.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

"Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds that the generic Republican picks 48% of the vote, while the president gets 43% support."

There is no "generic" republican. Each of the real candidates is a flake, with big negatives.

It's really pretty funny. "Generic Republican." Ha! That doesn't mean any Republican will win.

Also Obama's a liberal. Oh that's a good one too.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also Obama's a liberal. Oh that's a good one too.

He sure markets himself as one. Like most politicians though, he doesn't do what he promises.

Obumass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also Obama's a liberal. Oh that's a good one
> too.
>
> He sure markets himself as one. Like most
> politicians though, he doesn't do what he
> promises.


When, where? Never. The label is put on him by idiots like you. Not by him.

Nice Try Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice try. Which one of your ding bat candidates
> can beat him? Answer: none. The answer is to
> punish the Republican cult. Put them back on
> their heels. Put Dems in charge.

In Vegas, they call this doubling down on dumb.

When Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When, where? Never. The label is put on him by
> idiots like you. Not by him.

Lol. Going on Bill O'Riley and preaching wealth redistribution isn't Liberal?

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's really pretty funny. "Generic Republican."
> Ha! That doesn't mean any Republican will win.
>
> Also Obama's a liberal. Oh that's a good one too.


Obama is indeed a liberal, though he will try to portray his move to the center as something of his own choice, not opposition from the legislative branch.

HE was ranked by the National Journal, the most liberal Senator in 2007.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/01/31/national_journal_obama_most_li/

I know the government isn't giving you the free Prozac and counseling at the speed you'd like Johnny, but you elected a pinko creep who certainly would if he wasn't kept in check by Congress.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2011 07:49AM by WingNut.

Obumass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When, where? Never. The label is put on him
> by
> > idiots like you. Not by him.
>
> Lol. Going on Bill O'Riley and preaching wealth
> redistribution isn't Liberal?


Thats your interpretation of what he said. The rich paying more taxes is not income redistribution neither is equal opportunity. If they were Reagan woiuld be a liberal also. But then again by the standards of the Republican Party today even Reagan would be thrown to the wolves.

What did Dingle Barry Obama say to Joe the Plumber?

"we just wanna spread the wealth around!"

Sounds a little like Huey Long or Karl Marx to me.

NO business experience, no financial experience. The only thing Obama has done is be a hack lawyer and community "organizer" who found ways to squeeze taxpayers for money for his stupid consituents.

Class warfre, blame the other guy. So glad he has you fooled though.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/01/31/national_journal_obama_most_li/

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

The distribution of wealth and it's migration to the top 1% of the US population is a valid and important issue. The current recession will never end until there is some spreading of the wealth. The rich cannot buy us out of this recession.

And again, the comment was that Obama markets himself as a liberal. Not true. He markets himself as a pragmatist who is even willing to cut a deal with the cult religion previously known as the Republican Party.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What did Dingle Barry Obama say to Joe the
> Plumber?
>
> "we just wanna spread the wealth around!"
>
> Sounds a little like Huey Long or Karl Marx to
> me.
>
> NO business experience, no financial experience.
> The only thing Obama has done is be a hack lawyer
> and community "organizer" who found ways to
> squeeze taxpayers for money for his stupid
> consituents.
>
> Class warfre, blame the other guy. So glad he has
> you fooled though.
>
> http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/01/31
> /national_journal_obama_most_li/

So There Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The distribution of wealth and it's migration to
> the top 1% of the US population is a valid and
> important issue. The current recession will never
> end until there is some spreading of the wealth.
> The rich cannot buy us out of this recession.

The issue for you shouldn't be envy and jealousy, it should be "what are those peopel doing right that I should be doing". Manufacturing jobs in this country would help, but Obama is as much of a free trader as the worst repubs and an anti-industry clown to boot.



> And again, the comment was that Obama markets
> himself as a liberal. Not true. He markets
> himself as a pragmatist who is even willing to cut
> a deal with the cult religion previously known as
> the Republican Party.

The media and Democrat lackeys love to try to spin Obama as a centerist. He is a centerist because of opposition pressure and no other reason. There was nothing "centerist" about passing the ObamaCare debacle in the depths of a deep recession, nor the no-strings-attached stimulus or bailout.

Again, Obama was ranked as the Most Liberal US Senator in 2007, and we are very fortunate this buffoon does not have the ultimate power to govern as he chooses.

NOT a centerist.



> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What did Dingle Barry Obama say to Joe the
> > Plumber?
> >
> > "we just wanna spread the wealth around!"
> >
> > Sounds a little like Huey Long or Karl Marx to
> > me.
> >
> > NO business experience, no financial
> experience.
> > The only thing Obama has done is be a hack
> lawyer
> > and community "organizer" who found ways to
> > squeeze taxpayers for money for his stupid
> > consituents.
> >
> > Class warfre, blame the other guy. So glad he
> has
> > you fooled though.
> >
> >
> http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/01/31
>
> > /national_journal_obama_most_li/

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

The issues are not conservative vs liberal or Repub vs Dem.

The issues are the very foundation of our government and economic system. The problem is that we have politicians and not public servants, and there is plenty of blame to be laid on both sides. I am not defending or blaming anyone, except the fact that we need people elected to office who will simply do what is right. Clearly, there is always a need to compromise because there are always differences of opinon but the compromise should be based on what is best for the country, not best for a political party or a candidate's reelection.

George Washington said something in his farewell address indicating he felt that having these 2 parties (at that time Federalists and Democratic/Republicans) threatened the future of the country. He might have been right, but then his service was truely service and not political ambition.

All this posturing about Obama or the Repub leaders is an excercise in futility. Congress is charged with managing the finances of the country, they just need to do their job regardless of what is politically expedient.

Wolfy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats your interpretation of what he said. The
> rich paying more taxes is not income
> redistribution neither is equal opportunity. If
> they were Reagan woiuld be a liberal also. But
> then again by the standards of the Republican
> Party today even Reagan would be thrown to the
> wolves.

(2:00) - Obama: "I would take your marginal rate back to what it was under Bill Clinton; you can afford that. In exchange, I am cutting taxes for 95% of Americans."

(4:00) - Obama: "What I believe is, is that there's certain things that we've got to do. And we've got to help people that are having a touch time affording college so they can benefit like we've benefited from this great country. People who are having a tough time; they don't have health care. People who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills. And there are certain things that we've got to do. And at a certain point, we've got to pay for it."

(5:30) - Obama: "But the problem is, if I'm sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say I'm going to pay a little bit more. That is neighborliness."

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's really pretty funny. "Generic Republican."
> > Ha! That doesn't mean any Republican will win.
> >
> > Also Obama's a liberal. Oh that's a good one
> too.
>
>
> Obama is indeed a liberal, though he will try to
> portray his move to the center as something of his
> own choice, not opposition from the legislative
> branch.
>
> HE was ranked by the National Journal, the most
> liberal Senator in 2007.
> http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/01/31
> /national_journal_obama_most_li/


When conservatives think all tax policy equates to this:

Obumass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Lol. Going on Bill O'Riley and preaching wealth
> redistribution isn't Liberal?

Then anyone short of a crazy libertarian right-winger is a liberal.

Liberal policies: name one. Health care? Corporate, no government plan. War? He started another, escalated one, still stuck in both our occupations for the foreseeable future. Spying on citizens? Increased. Gitmo? Open for the foreseable future. The bailout? Corporations again. The stimulus? Payouts to corporations and more tax cuts. Bush tax cuts? Extended with some concessions granted him by Republicans and supposedly "liberal" Democrats in MORE tax cuts for regular people and small businesses.

What do you got? Gays in the military?

There is NO liberal party in US politics today.

Obumass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wolfy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thats your interpretation of what he said. The
> > rich paying more taxes is not income
> > redistribution neither is equal opportunity.
> If
> > they were Reagan woiuld be a liberal also. But
> > then again by the standards of the Republican
> > Party today even Reagan would be thrown to the
> > wolves.
>
> (2:00) - Obama: "I would take your marginal rate
> back to what it was under Bill Clinton; you can
> afford that. In exchange, I am cutting taxes for
> 95% of Americans."

What's your point? The rates under Clinton produced jobs and wealth for many Americans, no one went broke under the CLinton tax structure. A very conservative approach.
>
> (4:00) - Obama: "What I believe is, is that
> there's certain things that we've got to do. And
> we've got to help people that are having a touch
> time affording college so they can benefit like
> we've benefited from this great country. People
> who are having a tough time; they don't have
> health care. People who are trying to figure out
> how they are going to pay the bills. And there
> are certain things that we've got to do. And at a
> certain point, we've got to pay for it."
>

Yeah..pay for it..unlike the Republican policy of starting wars and not paying for it. Sounds very conservative to me.


> (5:30) - Obama: "But the problem is, if I'm
> sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is
> making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it
> and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say
> I'm going to pay a little bit more. That is
> neighborliness."

That is called a progressive income tax rate structure. The fact is the rich pay less as a percantage of their income on income and payroll taxes. So in reality we have the working class subsidising the rich!

Hardly a liberal point of view.

He's a Conservative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah..pay for it..unlike the Republican policy of
> starting wars and not paying for it. Sounds very
> conservative to me.

When Obama says "we've got to pay for it", he really means that high-earners should carry the load. Why should wealthy people be obligated to support some knocked-up twat, making minimum wage or some crackhead on welfare. It's a load of shit. Most of those losers don't even know where the money comes from and don't care.

* Welfare Loser: OBAMA IS GONNA PAY MY BILLS N SHYT, THAS Y I VOTED 4 HIM!

* Smart Guy: Sooo... Where do you think that money comes from?

* Welfare Loser: OBAMA!

* Smart Guy: Ummm... Where did Obama get the money?

* Welfare Loser: IDUNNO... FROM HIZ STASH I GESS...

> That is called a progressive income tax rate
> structure. The fact is the rich pay less as a
> percantage of their income on income and payroll
> taxes. So in reality we have the working class
> subsidising the rich!
>
> Hardly a liberal point of view.

I'm not arguing anymore that Obama has this or that views. I'm arguing that progressive tax structures are a load of shit. Nobody should be obligated to support people who are "having a tough time" just to be a nice person. That's why we have charities/donations; to give people the OPTION of helping others in need. If these douchers need more money, they should work hard and get a better job. Look at what the wealthy are doing right and follow their path.

You aren't arguing it anymore because you can't. If you truly believe that progressive taxation is unfair, well, I can only say you are wrong. And if you think people in poverty have done something to deserve to live that way and just don't work hard enough, I feel sorry for you for having such a low opinion of your fellow man.

I completely agree with Jonny Walker,,,the top earners in the US pay less taxes than any industrialized nation on the planet,,,

And the gap between the Top and middle class is waaaayyyy larger than any other indusrialized nation,,,

Corporate taxes may be higher than other countries but there's plenty of loopholes for most large corp.s o take advantage of,,,it's not taxes taking jobs offshore it's cheap nearly slave labor wages of underdeveloped(but catching up quick) countries,,,

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You aren't arguing it anymore because you can't.

Na. In that particular post, I was discussing Obama's chat with O'Riley (he claims that I misinterpreted Obama's words) and he was still blabbing about whether or not Obama is Liberal or Conservative. Go ahead and make your assumptions though.

> If you truly believe that progressive taxation is
> unfair, well, I can only say you are wrong. And if
> you think people in poverty have done something to
> deserve to live that way and just don't work hard
> enough, I feel sorry for you for having such a low
> opinion of your fellow man.

Did I ever say that they deserve to be poor? I only said that most are ignorant of where the money really comes from (they view it as free money), and they should work hard and observe successful people.

Talk about a broken record. How many times a day does Obama mention corporate jets. Like cancelling a tax write off on corporate jets would suddenly raise 14 trillion dollars in revenue.

Meanwhile he lives the same lifestyle or better except he does it on a taxpayer funded jet. Playing golf, dinner dates with wife to NYC.

Oh wait I know Bush did it too, so that suddenly makes it ok. How about setting an example during hard times and cutting back on some of the fundraising trips that we pay for and a little less golf.

Brock Listener Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Talk about a broken record. How many times a day
> does Obama mention corporate jets. Like cancelling
> a tax write off on corporate jets would suddenly
> raise 14 trillion dollars in revenue.


No one thinks that specific example will solve everything, but what it does is show exactly what sort of things Republicans are fighting for, and what that is is things that will never affect you or 99% of Americans.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brock Listener Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Talk about a broken record. How many times a
> day
> > does Obama mention corporate jets. Like
> cancelling
> > a tax write off on corporate jets would
> suddenly
> > raise 14 trillion dollars in revenue.
>
>
> No one thinks that specific example will solve
> everything, but what it does is show exactly what
> sort of things Republicans are fighting for, and
> what that is is things that will never affect you
> or 99% of Americans.


I guess this is one group of "little guys" you've decided not to support Johnny. How about these aircraft guys? Will it hurt them Johnny? "never affect you
or 99% of Americans."?? Put yourself in the shoes of one of the hundreds of thousands of business jet production workers before you shoot your stupid fucking mouth off. First it was Vegas, now it's corporate jets. What the fuck are you going to attack next Johnny? Anyway on behalf of the business jet workforce, both white and blue collar, go fuck yourself in the ass.

Your argument is closing a loophole in the tax code that makes it so rich people and corporations have to spend slightly less money on their private jets means they will stop using said private jets entirely and put all those workers out of business. This is a silly thing to believe. Is the private jet industry not even more affected by gas costs, which are entirely unpredictable and therefore impossible to plan for? Isn't this just adding a minor additional expense on what is entirely an already expensive luxury item?

This and other taxes will have very little, if any, effect on the workers that are being "trickled down" to, because people and companies that are rich enough to buy these things will buy them anyways. These taxes are not what have destroyed or will destroy jobs in America. The LACK of them hasn't really led to some kind of big BOOM in the private jet industry, which apparently you consider some kind of backbone of American industry employing millions that will be instantly thrown out of work.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your argument is closing a loophole in the tax
> code that makes it so rich people and corporations
> have to spend slightly less money on their private
> jets means they will stop using said private jets
> entirely and put all those workers out of
> business. This is a silly thing to believe. Is the
> private jet industry not even more affected by gas
> costs, which are entirely unpredictable and
> therefore impossible to plan for? Isn't this just
> adding a minor additional expense on what is
> entirely an already expensive luxury item?
>
> This and other taxes will have very little, if
> any, effect on the workers that are being
> "trickled down" to, because people and companies
> that are rich enough to buy these things will buy
> them anyways. These taxes are not what have
> destroyed or will destroy jobs in America. The
> LACK of them hasn't really led to some kind of big
> BOOM in the private jet industry, which apparently
> you consider some kind of backbone of American
> industry employing millions that will be instantly
> thrown out of work.

Just like Bill Clinton said his small luxury tax on yachts and airplanes would be of no significant economic consequence right Johnny? Not only did it stop yacht production in the US it brought revenue from sales to a halt also.

See Johnny it's not that I consider
the the private jet industry some kind of backbone of American
industry employing millions that will be instantly
thrown out of work. These kind of punitive actions by the government punishing success and behavior have an incremental and persistently negative economic effect.

Millions won't be laid off but thousands will. Production workers, service workers, food, waste disposal, fuel, all of them being private sector tax payers. the revenue lost by laying off these folks and subsequent unemployment relief they will be paid will far out weigh revenues collected by closing the so called "loop holes" in the federal tax code. Again, if you make something more expensive whether an activity or product, you'll sell less of it and have less activity happening. In this case, and in your opinion, the evil and lucky rich people joy riding all around the world on their evil corporate jets. And of course all the little people behind the scenes making it happen will be better off right Johnny?

Obama knows there are people just like you that eat that shit up. That's why he says it. He focused grouped it, his base lapped it up and swallowed it whole. Envy and jealously plays well with liberals. But one day soon you'll lose your government or private sector job because all the rich peoples money will have vanished.

Yeah those Clinton years sure were an utter hell of unemployment and deficits.

Address my point that gas prices have a greater affect than a "tax increase" that you can plan ahead for.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2011 11:47AM by Johnny Walker.

Also it's funny how the right defends these tax loopholes specifically targeting a small luxury industry and yet consider much more widely shared incentives to buy certain cars to be anathema.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah those Clinton years sure were an utter hell
> of unemployment and deficits.
>
> Address my point that gas prices have a greater
> affect than a "tax increase" that you can plan
> ahead for.

Why don't you address Johnny Wad's point that the failed luxury tax put a stake in the heart of the private shipbuilding industry? Also, what were gas prices when the luxory tax was in place? About a buck or so? History and facts do not support your premise. If you are over 35 or so, you should remember what happened in the early 90s.

THe only thing Johnny Wad got wrong was that it wasn't Clinton, it was George HW Bush who instituted and than repealed the luxury tax. By the time of the repeal, however, thousands of jobs were lost. The repeal late in Bush's term actually helped Clinton's road to recovery during his first term. It saved a bunch of jobs and created a bit more as well.

body bag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah those Clinton years sure were an utter
> hell
> > of unemployment and deficits.
> >
> > Address my point that gas prices have a greater
> > affect than a "tax increase" that you can plan
> > ahead for.
>
> Why don't you address Johnny Wad's point that the
> failed luxury tax put a stake in the heart of the
> private shipbuilding industry? Also, what were
> gas prices when the luxory tax was in place?
> About a buck or so? History and facts do not
> support your premise. If you are over 35 or so,
> you should remember what happened in the early
> 90s.


I looked for information on that online and couldn't find any, that's why. Yacht-building appears to have survived the ordeal, whether it was caused by this tax or not (or if it happened).

I do remember what happened in the 90s, but not specifically the trevails of the shipbuilding industry.

However, I'm going to disagree on you giving Bush I too much credit on Clinton's successful outcomes as far as economics goes.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I looked for information on that online and
> couldn't find any, that's why. Yacht-building
> appears to have survived the ordeal, whether it
> was caused by this tax or not (or if it happened).

Try google, it isn't that hard to use.

> I do remember what happened in the 90s, but not
> specifically the trevails of the shipbuilding
> industry.

So, you really have no business talking out of your ass on this topic.

> However, I'm going to disagree on you giving Bush
> I too much credit on Clinton's successful outcomes
> as far as economics goes.

I am not saying that Bush is the reason for Clinton's economic successes, just that there was one minor factor that didn't send us into a further recession that would have made recovery harder for Clinton. There is a big differce between the two.

OBAMA FAILS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was quote from SENATOR BARACK H. OBAMA,
> MARCH, 2006 just before he voted against
> increasing the debt ceiling.
>
> "The fact that we are here today to debate raising
> America's debt limit is a sign of leadership
> failure. It is a sign that the US Government can
> not pay its
> own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on
> ongoing financial assistance from foreign
> countries to finance our Government's reckless
> fiscal policies.
> Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically
> and internationally.
>
> Leadership means that the buck stops here.
> Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad
> choices today onto the backs of our children and
> grandchildren.
>
> America has a debt problem and a failure of
> leadership. Americans deserve better."

The funny thing about Obama is .his chameleon like shift from position to position without media or base scrutiny.

Nobody is questioning Obama flip flop or asking what has changed in 5 years.

FUCK TEABAGGERS

I love how the socialists, sorry I mean the left, love to play this off as a symbolic vote. What a crock! The vote was 52 to 48. Oh yeah not close at all.

Bwahahahahahahaha! "Symbolic vote". That's incredible. Tooooo funny. Like that somehow made it "not count" because it was only a "symbol" for a "real" vote. Those crazy Dems. What will they think of next? A "Symbolic" Presidency?

TRCIII Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bwahahahahahahaha! "Symbolic vote".
> That's incredible. Tooooo funny. Like that
> somehow made it "not count" because it was only a
> "symbol" for a "real" vote. Those crazy Dems.
> What will they think of next? A "Symbolic"
> Presidency?


2 years later, he finally comes up with his respose