Obama: We Have Money For Warfare, But Not For Welfare

Feeding the Abscess

Feeding the Abscess

CAGiversary!
Feedback
36 (100%)
"This is not just a matter of Social Security checks," Obama also told CBS News. "These are veterans' checks; these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

When CBS anchor Scott Pelley followed up by asking, "can you guarantee as president those checks will go out on August the 3rd?," Obama said: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd, if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.
Click to expand...

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...urity-176615/1

Someone please inform Barack Peace Prize Obama that if we stopped spending over a trillion dollars a year killing people for "humanitarian" reasons, there wouldn't even be a debt ceiling debate.

Also, grumble, politics of fear = bad, blah blah hope and change.

What a shyster.
 
It's just politics. He's threatening something that he knows will rile up his base and democratic congressman in hopes of getting them to accept a debt deal even if it has concessions they don't like.

A threat of cutting spending on the wars wouldn't work as a lot of those people would be happy to see us speed up the end of the wars and weren't happy with his Afghan drawdown policy saying it was too slow.
 
Nothing changes until Perot or Nader gets elected, or whoever the next one of them happens to be. Even that is a tiny step, then we'll need the legislative branch to get the nuclear option until we have citizens in there as opposed to professional politicians or famous people.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']We don't have money for either.[/QUOTE]

you mean we shouldn't be borrowing 40 cents of every dollar?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']you mean we shouldn't be borrowing 40 cents of every dollar?[/QUOTE]

why not borrow more, i mean theres 60 cents more per dollar we could borrow

/s
 
In defense of Obama it's mostly the fault of the Republicans in Congress if those checks don't go out.

In criticism of Obama, way to resort to politics of fear. :roll: Too bad he can't resort to telling us there won't be any money for schools, police, or firefighters as well.

This is precisely why I can't stand politicians, they play these little political games of blaming the other side while rarely accepting they are fallible themselves.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']In defense of Obama it's mostly the fault of the Republicans in Congress if those checks don't go out.[/QUOTE]

The republicans are keeping it real. If Obama had his way, this nation would be socialist at this point.
 
[quote name='lordopus99'] The republicans are keeping it real. If Obama had his way, this nation would be socialist at this point.[/QUOTE]

Are they keeping it real? Based on 2010 campaign ads one would conclude Republicans are the biggest defenders of the gigantic socialist program known as Medicare.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']The republicans are keeping it real. If Obama had his way, this nation would be socialist at this point.[/QUOTE]

double-facepalm.jpg


Thanks Glenn, glad to see you'll be maintaining your CAG membership after leaving Fox News.

I'm no fan of Obama either but this argument that he's a socialist is just as silly and ridiculous as the claims that Bush was Hitler.


[quote name='IRHari']Are they keeping it real? Based on 2010 campaign ads one would conclude Republicans are the biggest defenders of the gigantic socialist program known as Medicare.[/QUOTE]

I wonder what their response to Social Security will be if the checks don't go out. Do they (A) Defend it because Obama screwed it up or (B) jump to their old argument that it should have been privatized all along?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I wonder what their response to Social Security will be if the checks don't go out. Do they (A) Defend it because Obama screwed it up or (B) jump to their old argument that it should have been privatized all along?[/QUOTE]


There won't be a problem with the debt ceiling. They backed themselves into a corner with this "no tax increases" nonsense. Now they can't get legislation through without an increase so now they have a back up plan.

The plan? Give Obama authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own then they have the opportunity to vote against his increase. He then veto's their refusal and the debt ceiling goes up.

You know you've painted yourself into a tight space when you have to come up with that kind of convoluted legislation to prevent the country from falling into a depression and keep your job.
 
Social Security will not be cancelled. It's an entitlement. Even further, 60% of federal spending goes to entitlements and cannot be stopped by a President.

This is all politics. This bullshit of debt ceiling has to stop. We have a trade deficit, dollar deficit and budget(s) deficit. It's embarrassing. As long as the dollar is the top currency in the world, USA will keep on borrowing and reassuring countries it still has value.
 
[quote name='typical guy']There won't be a problem with the debt ceiling. They backed themselves into a corner with this "no tax increases" nonsense. Now they can't get legislation through without an increase so now they have a back up plan.

The plan? Give Obama authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own then they have the opportunity to vote against his increase. He then veto's their refusal and the debt ceiling goes up.

You know you've painted yourself into a tight space when you have to come up with that kind of convoluted legislation to prevent the country from falling into a depression and keep your job.[/QUOTE]

You make it sound almost like it's a game. Are you kidding me? They will increase the debt ceiling. There is no "maybe not" about it. Despite Obama's not-so-cool-relationship with Republicans, someone is gonna get blamed for a delay and they'll raise it.
 
[quote name='fezlopez']You make it sound almost like it's a game. Are you kidding me? They will increase the debt ceiling. There is no "maybe not" about it. Despite Obama's not-so-cool-relationship with Republicans, someone is gonna get blamed for a delay and they'll raise it.[/QUOTE]

No, I make it sound like the Republican's treat it like a game. And that's exactly what they're doing. I'm simply telling you what their "back up plan" is. It was announced this week (I think Tuesday?).
 
[quote name='typical guy']No, I make it sound like the Republican's treat it like a game. And that's exactly what they're doing. I'm simply telling you what their "back up plan" is. It was announced this week (I think Tuesday?).[/QUOTE]

Hm, interesting. I wonder what the democrats are saying about this.
 
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” Obama said on March 16, 2006. “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. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']What would Ron Paul [hallow be thy name] do?[/QUOTE]

Bring everyone home from around the world, end the War on Drugs, eliminate the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, and Education. He's stated that he'd like to cut 75% of our foreign policy/defense budget, which would save at least $750 billion by itself. Add in the elimination of the War On Drugs and those departments, and you're sitting at about $1 trillion in cuts.

I'm going to have to join the crowd in criticizing Republicans. They doubled the national debt in 8 years, 6 with control of all three branches of government and two with the presidency, and now they're fiscally responsible? To take Michele Bachmann to task, you can't vote for the 2008 stimulus, appropriations bills that ran up the debt, bend over for the empire, and the Ryan plan itself, which I will get to in a minute, and still have credibility on fiscal responsibility.

Also cute is the implication that they won't vote to raise the debt ceiling; the Paul Ryan plan calls for raising the ceiling multiple times over the next thirty years (to say nothing of the hilarious assumption that future Congresses would stick exactly to that plan):

Fiscal year 2012: $16,204,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $17,177,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $17,951,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,697,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $19,503,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $20,245,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $20,968,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $21,699,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $22,408,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $23,102,000,000,000.

On and on until fiscal year 2040, when the budget would, at last, be balanced. Allegedly.
 
[quote name='camoor']
political-pictures-john-boehner-millionaire-taxes.jpg
[/QUOTE]

So in this context of this thread...
I guess you are a firm believer that someone who lives the American dream of rising to the top on the efforts of their labor is to support the poor that never made it by providing them free healthcare, food, shelter, etc. Gotcha
 
[quote name='lordopus99']So in this context of this thread...
I guess you are a firm believer that someone who lives the American dream of rising to the top on the efforts of their labor is to support the poor that never made it by providing them free healthcare, food, shelter, etc. Gotcha[/QUOTE]

I never knew that asking the rich to pay taxes was so controversial.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']So in this context of this thread...
I guess you are a firm believer that someone who lives the American dream of rising to the top on the efforts of their labor is to support the poor that never made it by providing them free healthcare, food, shelter, etc. Gotcha[/QUOTE]

People actually believe the shit you believe. Astonishing.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']So in this context of this thread...
I guess you are a firm believer that someone who lives the American dream of rising to the top on the efforts of their labor is to support the poor that never made it by providing them free healthcare, food, shelter, etc. Gotcha[/QUOTE]

And if they rose to the top because of something other than their "labor"?

I just find it amusing that people really think the richest Americans got there because they got up every morning and worked 9-5 at the steel mill.

Its more likely they opened a business. When opening that business did they take out a bank loan only or did they take out a Small Business Association loan from the government too? Then again, going back to that possible bank loan, part of the reason that bank existed in the first place is because they were insured by the FDIC. Perhaps they went to school, had to take out loans subsidized by the government...

So, did this rich person really get to the top simply because of their own labor or because they used government programs in some way? Is it unfair for them to have to repay the government for the programs and protections that got them to where they are.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']The republicans are keeping it real. If Obama had his way, this nation would be socialist at this point.[/QUOTE]

Come on now, the Republicans are the ones who bailed out the car companies. Honestly, I think both parties kind of suck nowadays.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Bring everyone home from around the world, end the War on Drugs, eliminate the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, and Education. He's stated that he'd like to cut 75% of our foreign policy/defense budget, which would save at least $750 billion by itself. Add in the elimination of the War On Drugs and those departments, and you're sitting at about $1 trillion in cuts.[/QUOTE]

I don't know. Something tells me that might not work out so hot.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'] Is it unfair for them to have to repay the government for the programs and protections that got them to where they are.[/QUOTE]

How many small business owners would take those loans knowing that the justification for them owing X% of the proceeds is because they took that loan?

Would the businesses that find alternative funding be exceptions to the tax?

This argument is BS. We do not pay taxes because we OWE the government. We pay taxes because the government needs it to function. A lot of people have problems with the role the government is taking, not that they have to pay taxes.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']So in this context of this thread...
I guess you are a firm believer that someone who lives the American dream of rising to the top on the efforts of their labor is to support the poor that never made it by providing them free healthcare, food, shelter, etc. Gotcha[/QUOTE]

Wow, this is just plain stupid. REALLY? We all live in a f-ing vacuum? No, no such thing as a community. There is this thing called SOCIETY. People get together to do thngs together for the larger interest... not the interests of a few. People like you who are so damn myopic and simple minded are a big part of the problem. No big picture comprehension. Yes, we live in a vacuum and others have no effect on me...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']How many small business owners would take those loans knowing that the justification for them owing X% of the proceeds is because they took that loan?

Would the businesses that find alternative funding be exceptions to the tax?

This argument is BS. We do not pay taxes because we OWE the government. We pay taxes because the government needs it to function. A lot of people have problems with the role the government is taking, not that they have to pay taxes.[/QUOTE]

My point wasn't that there should be a tax simply because someone relied on the government to get where they were. Rather, I'm saying that there's little chance that the rich got to where they are without any government assistance.

I'm not saying it is because they "owe" it to the government but rather they must pay their fair share in order for future citizens to have the opportunity to succeed as they did.
 
[quote name='camoor']I never knew that asking the rich to pay taxes was so controversial.[/QUOTE]
Who is saying that they shouldn't pay tax? They currently do, just not as much as you would like them to. Why should someone be taxed a different rate because they make more... ridiculous.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']And if they rose to the top because of something other than their "labor"?

I just find it amusing that people really think the richest Americans got there because they got up every morning and worked 9-5 at the steel mill.

Its more likely they opened a business. When opening that business did they take out a bank loan only or did they take out a Small Business Association loan from the government too? Then again, going back to that possible bank loan, part of the reason that bank existed in the first place is because they were insured by the FDIC. Perhaps they went to school, had to take out loans subsidized by the government...

So, did this rich person really get to the top simply because of their own labor or because they used government programs in some way? Is it unfair for them to have to repay the government for the programs and protections that got them to where they are. [/quote]

Your telling me guys like Bill Gates, who spent years in a garage working with some guys to build a program that built the basis of mostly everything we do on a PC today, should pay a higher tax percentage... how about a guy like Master P who spent years on the street selling mixtapes just to get his music out to get to level he got to and make the money he did... how is that not labor?

As for all the loans (business/bank/student that you referred to)... and you don't have to pay interest on that money i.e. essentially a tax for taking the money? Excuses.

[quote name='docinvh']Come on now, the Republicans are the ones who bailed out the car companies. Honestly, I think both parties kind of suck nowadays. [/quote]
Think about this topic from a non-party line. If you let the car companies fail, now what? You cripple cities like Detroit. Take away jobs. Outsource. All leaving less money in the government's hands in the long run while hurting the economy and the people that live in it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']How many small business owners would take those loans knowing that the justification for them owing X% of the proceeds is because they took that loan?

Would the businesses that find alternative funding be exceptions to the tax?

This argument is BS. We do not pay taxes because we OWE the government. We pay taxes because the government needs it to function. A lot of people have problems with the role the government is taking, not that they have to pay taxes.[/QUOTE]

Your signature with the dohdough quote is great! I cannot believe that you cannot comprehend it... Really? Are you joking that you do not understand it?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']My point wasn't that there should be a tax simply because someone relied on the government to get where they were. Rather, I'm saying that there's little chance that the rich got to where they are without any government assistance.

I'm not saying it is because they "owe" it to the government but rather they must pay their fair share in order for future citizens to have the opportunity to succeed as they did.[/QUOTE]

Your point is that they should feel grateful for the programs provided and give back. I agree with ending certain subsidies, and closing loopholes, but I feel they already pay more than their "fair share" at the current tax rates.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your point is that they should feel grateful for the programs provided and give back. I agree with ending certain subsidies, and closing loopholes, but I feel they already pay more than their "fair share" at the current tax rates.[/QUOTE]

I never once advocated them having to pay an increased share of taxes out of gratitude. Simply that they should help to fund the government that helped them get where they are.

If they were paying their fair share, they wouldn't have money to burn.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I never once advocated them having to pay an increased share of taxes out of gratitude. Simply that they should help to fund the government that helped them get where they are.

If they were paying their fair share, they wouldn't have money to burn.[/QUOTE]

This post blows me away.

The first part implies that nobody is successful without the government.

The second portion implied that Mayweather (who earned every penny as an entertainer, which has little to do with government assistance) shouldn't be able to throw money around that he's earned.

Would you say that someone like me, on my modest salary, needs to pay more in taxes if I an extra $50 at the end of the month that I use for a poker game and some beer?
 
[quote name='lordopus99']
Your telling me guys like Bill Gates, who spent years in a garage working with some guys to build a program that built the basis of mostly everything we do on a PC today, should pay a higher tax percentage... how about a guy like Master P who spent years on the street selling mixtapes just to get his music out to get to level he got to and make the money he did... how is that not labor? [/quote]
It's funny that Bill Gates is always used as this rages to riches success story, and yet his dad was rich before he was. Hell, his dad was even on the board of Planned Parenthood. As to the rest of your argument, how about the man who toils all day working at a job where they don't make enough to live off? Should they not be taking into consideration? Or do we just care about the "producers"?


Think about this topic from a non-party line. If you let the car companies fail, now what? You cripple cities like Detroit. Take away jobs. Outsource. All leaving less money in the government's hands in the long run while hurting the economy.
Click to expand...
Detroit is crippled now, post bailout. The car companies are hardly in better shape now. Its interesting how you argue for socialism for the rich (bailouts), and then rail against what you perceive to be attempts at socialism for the poor.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Who is saying that they shouldn't pay tax? They currently do, just not as much as you would like them to. Why should someone be taxed a different rate because they make more... ridiculous.



t.[/QUOTE]

...you're against graduated income tax? do you think its fair to tax somebody who makes 20k a year 30%?
 
[quote name='yahoosale14']...you're against graduated income tax? do you think its fair to tax somebody who makes 20k a year 30%?[/QUOTE]
I think you mean progressive taxation. I'm sure he doesn't mind regressive taxation, as both are technically graduated, at all. Probably because he doesn't understand the concept of marginal utility.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']

Think about this topic from a non-party line. If you let the car companies fail, now what? You cripple cities like Detroit. Take away jobs. Outsource. All leaving less money in the government's hands in the long run while hurting the economy and the people that live in it.[/QUOTE]

Eh? So my taxes should go to bail large businesses out because they don't know how to run a company, but the guys who own the company shouldn't pay more taxes even though they're responsible for running it into the ground? They're going to outsource regardless because it makes good business sense, so that's not really even a consideration.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']This post blows me away.

The first part implies that nobody is successful without the government.

The second portion implied that Mayweather (who earned every penny as an entertainer, which has little to do with government assistance) shouldn't be able to throw money around that he's earned.

Would you say that someone like me, on my modest salary, needs to pay more in taxes if I an extra $50 at the end of the month that I use for a poker game and some beer?[/QUOTE]

Everyone has some type of reliance on the government at some point along the way is what I am saying and I still stand by. There's just no way to say otherwise. The government is deeply involved in our economy making it one of the top economies in the world, even in a recession. One only needs to look at any 3rd world country to appreciate how their government plays a role in their success.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Your telling me guys like Bill Gates, who spent years in a garage working with some guys to build a program that built the basis of mostly everything we do on a PC today, should pay a higher tax percentage... how about a guy like Master P who spent years on the street selling mixtapes just to get his music out to get to level he got to and make the money he did... how is that not labor? [/QUOTE]

It's been a long time since someone made themselves the butt of a joke that both sides of the political spectrum can laugh at.

Gates was born in Seattle, Washington, to William H. Gates, Sr. and Mary Maxwell Gates, of English, German, and Scotch-Irish descent.[9][10] His family was upper middle class; his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

A classic riches to wealth story!

All this schooling you is good fun, but remember, I didn't even get into the progressive taxes question. It would be a good start if multimillionaires were taxed at the same rate as the rest of us. Don't see how you can legitimately argue with this, but I'm looking forward to it.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']This post blows me away.

The first part implies that nobody is successful without the government.

The second portion implied that Mayweather (who earned every penny as an entertainer, which has little to do with government assistance) shouldn't be able to throw money around that he's earned.

Would you say that someone like me, on my modest salary, needs to pay more in taxes if I an extra $50 at the end of the month that I use for a poker game and some beer?[/QUOTE]
As much as I drink the Mayweather hate-orade, despite a large portion of his current income being derived from boxing, most of that money goes towards investments, which is taxed at a lower rate and what will sustain his lifestyle long after he hangs up his gloves. He doesn't benefit so much as being a boxer, but as a person with a lot of capital. So what RvB said was correct using that framework. Not sure if he meant it that way though...lolz.
 
[quote name='dohdough']As much as I drink the Mayweather hate-orade, despite a large portion of his current income being derived from boxing, most of that money goes towards investments, which is taxed at a lower rate and what will sustain his lifestyle long after he hangs up his gloves. He doesn't benefit so much as being a boxer, but as a person with a lot of capital. So what RvB said was correct using that framework. Not sure if he meant it that way though...lolz.[/QUOTE]

An analysis of Floyd Mayweather wasn't my intention but rather the simple point that some incredibly wealthy people literally have no other use for their money than to burn it.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Who is saying that they shouldn't pay tax? They currently do, just not as much as you would like them to. Why should someone be taxed a different rate because they make more... ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Adam Smith was pro progressive taxation.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']An analysis of Floyd Mayweather wasn't my intention but rather the simple point that some incredibly wealthy people literally have no other use for their money than to burn it.[/QUOTE]

Why is this an indication that the government should take it? I thought we were talking about "fair share" not "whatever they don't need". Chances are if you doubled his tax rate he would still have money to spend and you would still be complaining that he is burning his own money, when the government could seize it and use it as their own.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Why is this an indication that the government should take it? I thought we were talking about "fair share" not "whatever they don't need". Chances are if you doubled his tax rate he would still have money to spend and you would still be complaining that he is burning his own money, when the government could seize it and use it as their own.[/QUOTE]

Now you've just shifted into pure ridiculous mode.
 
When they cannot pretend it actually benefits everyone ala trickle down they pivot to a half assed moral argument.
 
[quote name='Msut77']When they cannot pretend it actually benefits everyone ala trickle down they pivot to a half assed moral argument.[/QUOTE]
Cause then they wouldn't be rich anymore you socialist commie kenyan usurper!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top