O B A M A
 

I was listening to Michele Mcphee on TKK tonight and heard her say this one.
O B A M A

One Big Ass Mistake America

So true !!!
Go can do a search and easily find a place to buy the bumper sticker !

None of the above wasn't on the ballot

Your kidding me right? America's mistake happened 8 years ago.

Didn't matter who got voted in....he was gonna have a rough ride! Give the man some time!

Sure it was. It's called Abstained.

:rollem:

did you really think it was gonna turn around in 60 something days? i don't understand all the hate on this guy, i mean come on it took 6 years to get into this mess... and what are is everyone going to say when it turns around???

Amen!!

RON PAUL !!!!!!
Give him time???? He's bankrupting America, selling out our childrens future for socialist change and you want to give him more time?

The Bush/Obama plan is borderline criminal IMO. If a Republican had added the kind of dept this guy has in 60 days you would be calling for his head.

At least he didn't say 'Let them eat cake'

We just did have a Republican running up this kind of debt and I don't remember anyone being too happy about it.

Obama's debt is pretty huge, but I think some of this can be justified due to economic circumstances and some can't.

Imagine if we elected McCain instead of Bush in 2000 over Gore. We probably wouldn't have had the prescription drug plan or the Iraq war. The budget would likely have been in much better shape and left America much better prepared to deal with the Global recession. Obama wouldn't have had a chance against Republican opposition.

-spence

Give him more time?
I couldnt find the youtube, but here is the transcript - look at what the HArvard Law professor had to say about salaries-

STEVE KROFT:

And now I think there are a lot of people say, "Look, we're not going to be able to keep our best people. They're not going to stay and work here for $250,000 a year when they can go work for a hedge fund, if they can find one that's still (LAUGHTER) working—

BARACK OBAMA:
I've told them directly. 'Cause I've heard some of this. they need to spend a little time outside of New York. Because— you know, if you go to North Dakota, or you go to Iowa, or you go to Arkansas, where folks would be thrilled to be making $75,000 a year— without a bonus, then I think they'd get a sense of why people are frustrated.

Huh? The President of the United STates is comparing the salaries of New York, Boston and San Francisco and saying, well you shold see what the make in ARKANSAS, IOWA and NORTH DAKOTA???????
That because MORON, the people who can do the job and get paid more money MOVE OUT OF AKANSAS, IOWA and NORTH DAKOTA!!! The market drives salaries. Whats the cost of living in Manhattan vs. ANYWHERE in North Dakota? I dont think I ever heard a more ignorant comment by a presidnet in my life.

RIJIMMY brought you this a month ago, their a little slow, but they're catching on.....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/...tml#cnnSTCText

And the Patriot act scared you? Wheres code pink when you need them?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will push for unprecedented new regulatory powers on Tuesday to seize financial institutions whose failure would pose serious risks to the U.S. financial system, according to two senior administration officials.

McCain 2000.

How about Ru Paul, give him a chance.

That's an understatement Spence. It's bankrupting us. And it only took him 60 days. What will we be in 4 years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

She has been making a comeback. You go girl. :btu:

Good lord, have you hit the bottle already this morning?

Obama is simply stating that a big reason for the populist rage is precisely because the economies of scale on pay are so different.

People leave Iowa not necessarily to make more money, but because if you want to work in finance there are very few jobs to begin with.

It's like you're not even thinking about this stuff before you post it.

-spence

No wheaties were eaten at Jimmie's this morning.

Spence, you're getting to the point of not even warranting a reply.
Yep, Obamas is right, them there city slickers should get out in the countree and see howz us simple folks live! I reckon 75 thousands dollars would be me one of them big ole screen teevees, I reckon. Good thing I got mee guns and mee religion to cling too, yes suh!

You should never drink on an empty stomach.

-spence

Wow, that brings up memories growing up in Iowa.

My father (who designed one of the first avionics computers before he became an aerospace executive) used to come home from work and count my teeth. If I didn't loose more than one that day I got to keep my rock candy from the pharmacy we'd visit once a month.

Even highly skilled white collar jobs in some states don't earn a lot of money. When I started out of college in 1994 I was doing 3D computer animation for very profitable litigation cases and earned $20,000 a year. Even today $75 grand with a low cost of living is a lot of money and more than most people in the Mid-west outside of cities earn. When you live in Manhatten there is so much money around you the notion of earning millions, or tens of millions seems commonplace.

In Iowa, it's like you're on another planet.

-spence

nice try,
notice Obama puts the burden on the people in NYC , why not EDUCATE the public? Why not explain the high demand for these professionals, the milions of workers in these industry that had nothing to do with the crisis, the millions of workers that are managing pension funds and humanity funds so that your grandparents get monthly pay? The thousnads of technology workers that are leading the world in development of client service.
See Spence, he cant do that, he cant highlight successful people, then his base will say "Hey, you mean I still have to work to be succesful under Obama"?
He cant be seen siding with "The MAn"
Everything he has done since taking office is to SCREW hard working people who get paid well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

This is the FUTURE of America, this is what Obama is celebrating and supporting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY84fF2hzhY

Jim, you really need to relax and come to grips of the fact that you are now a tax slave.

Because that wasn't the context of the comment.

That's not the point.

The comments you posted were comparing the average Joe in the Midwest to the top people earing hugh salaries in the financial industry, the people who are making millions regardless if they're successful or not and having the taxpayer (i.e. the average Joe in the Midwest) bail them out, and about Obama (being president) having to reconcile the situation.

What exactly has Obama done to screw people that get paid well? Let's see, he's decided not to extend some of Bush's tax cuts that are set to expire next year. Hmmm, were these people getting screwed under Clinton, because as I remember they seemed to be doing quite well.

-spence

In some people's opinion, not extending tax cuts is no different than saying you're going to raise tax cuts. While I disagree with this idea, there are many delusional folks who don't get the difference.

Bush's tax cuts benefited the wealthy more than the middle-class worker. I disagreed with the tax cuts then and still feel they *helped* (noticed I didn't say "caused") put us into the situation we are in today. The country went to war which bears a massive amount of expense, and at the same time he cut taxes?

you need to read the question/answer again, your twisting the context.
So today's economy is equivalent to under Clinton?

The state of the economy has nothing to do with how fair the tax code is to the individual!

-spence

They're not doing so well now are they? Im not sure if you noticed but the retail, auto, travel, airlines, restaurant, housing and stock market are all in the crapper.
How "fair" is it to raise taxes now? Seems contrary to common sense.

In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers. In 2009, for example, Tax Policy Center figures show that after the income-shifting in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined. In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.

These figures do not include the impact of Obama's proposal to apply Social Security payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, this plan would increase the tax burden of top earners by an additional $40 billion in 2009 alone and more than $629 billion over the next ten years. By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined.
To put the Obama plan in context, it is important to understand how divided America's tax burden already is between a large group of Americans who pay little or nothing and a shrinking group of upper-income taxpayers who shoulder the lion's share of the burden. For example:

In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions. By 2006, the number of non-payers had grown to nearly 44 million, one-third of all income tax filers.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2005, the top 20 percent of households paid 86.3 percent of income taxes while the bottom 80 percent paid a collective 13.7 percent of the income tax burden. The top 1 percent of households paid 38.8 percent of income taxes.
Looking at all federal taxes, in 1990, the bottom 80 percent of households paid 42 percent of the tax burden while the top 1 percent of households paid about 16 percent. By 2005, the share of all federal taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent of households had fallen to 31 percent, while the share paid by the wealthiest households had risen to nearly 28 percent.
A recent Tax Foundation study found that in 2004, the nation's tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households.

It has nothing to do with fairness, taxes would only be fair if your individual tax contribution was computed based your personal consumption of benefits.

The reality is that taxation is a variable used to manage a system, it's quite impersonal when you think about it.

-spence

man are you in denial

You're not paying attention.

Fairness is a personal thing. I perceive my taxes to be fair or unfair, but the Government couldn't really care less what I think.

-spence

I agree just ask Nancy Peliosia or Coupe Deval or John Kerry or Barney Frank

Since you decided to use the BOLD command....

This has been true for quite some time. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of the tax burden alone.

According to the numbers at taxpolicycenter.org (yo, I got the site from your own post) the bottom quintile in 2007 had a mean household income of about 12,000 per year. So in other words, these people don't pay taxes anyway.

I have to say that your anger seems to be fueled by partisan hack job hit pieces that can't even stand up to a few minutes with the Google. This article that I'd note you didn't post a link to, is just citing business as usual hoping you'll get a rise out of it.

RIJIMMY, do you really understand anything you're bitching about?

-spence

:lurk:
Posted from my bad azz superhightech iPhone/Mobile device

:rotflmao::rotflmao: That's the first time I've seen that one.