Differences between Obama's Policies and Methods and those of Bush, Jr

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

The Tea Party doesn't know what ii wants to be. It started out as a Libertarian movement, then other people with different ideologies and agendas adopted it. The movement was also joined by conspiracy theorists, and people who were just incoherently angry.

....... Says someone on the outside trying to judge what's going on on the inside. Let me help you out by showing you a statement that pretty much reflects what's going on in the tea party:

Quote

I've been coming to similar conclusions about politicians and political parties in general. People join one or the other of the "teams" and then get all worked up bitching about the other side, but when you step back, is there really that much difference? Or are we just fighting over whether we should have ketchup or mustard on what is really the same shit sandwich.

That's right. It's your post number 11 from this thread. As I said earlier, the governmnet is broken. The new dynamic is insiders Vs. Outsiders. The status quo can't fix government because of what they have turned into.

If you remove your political blinders and erase agenda's you can see that the left and the right actually want the same thing. But people are demonizing each other with hot button topics like abortion, health care, religion, and conspiracy theories.

Both sides have to give a little, but neither are willing to bend on their pet projects. The false arguments you hear are people protecting their special interests.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 18]

I agree with most of what you are saying here. It is very hard to argue with when you take a look at what is happening day in and day out in Washington.

But on one point I disagree with you. It can be an insider that can start the change. But two driving factors have to be present
First, this insider has to be a strong proponent of the Constitution
Second, we the people got to dog their asses each and every day to make sure they continue to re-apply the Constitution when it comes to the day to day function of our government

If these two items are put in place by we the people, then the first step is to cut spending so much that the size of gov is reduced by some percentage over 20%. 60% would be a better number.

But, I guess I can look at it another way too. Anybody who would apply Constitutional principles to our government today would most likely not been seen by the party leader/elites as viable (IE outsiders) and would work against their own to see they do not get into office. Hence, in a manner of speaking, you are correct

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hmm, good points there.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[sfzombie 3]

in a manner of speaking my ass. he is 100% correct. it's like i stated in a different post about a circle, not a straight line: far enough left=right. and all poiticians are inhently bad in this system we have in place. someone stated it beautifully when it was posted that special interests are tearing the govt. apart. there is no fix for the system, and this is because nobody is willing to give up any sort of creature comforts and live hard for a while. it was the pioneer spirit that made this country great and getting soft is ruining it. and it's not the little people who need to sacrifice, i don't know many who can live on less than $200 a week, but i know a lot who do that.

anyone know of any fixes for the system? which may actually get implemented? i know of a bunch that will work, but we're talking about politicians here, and as long as there are lobbyists, nothing good can come of it.

http://kitswv.com

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Outsiders just want to fix the problem.

Enter the Tea party.

The entry of the clowns doesn't usually fix anything.

Your reply is both ignorant and naive.

Irony score 10/10.

The Tea Party consists of a small number of manipulators and a large number of terminally clueless followers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Outsiders just want to fix the problem.

Enter the Tea party.

The entry of the clowns doesn't usually fix anything.

Your reply is both ignorant and naive.

Irony score 10/10.

The Tea Party consists of a small number of manipulators and a large number of terminally clueless followers.

Mr Head
You really should put down the shovel

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[hwt 0]

Who cares, they both suck..

[hwt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Outsiders just want to fix the problem.

Enter the Tea party.

The entry of the clowns doesn't usually fix anything.

Your reply is both ignorant and naive.

Irony score 10/10.

The Tea Party consists of a small number of manipulators and a large number of terminally clueless followers.

Let me see... you are calling people whose main purpose is wanting smaller government and less taxes ignorant and clueless?

The same government that forced the banks to lend to people that had no money so that " everyone in this country could own a home" ?
there by collapsing the housing market and putting this economy on the brink of disaster .
the same government that has borrowed and grown
and is still trying to borrow more... that government ?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The same government that forced the banks to lend to people that had no money so that " everyone in this country could own a home" ?
there by collapsing the housing market and putting this economy on the brink of disaster .

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I wasn't talking about the Ryan budget, however that plan has serious problems as it is seriously fiscally irresponsible.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/03/matt-miller/matt-miller-blasts-deficit-debt-implications-paul-/

Did you read the whole article or did you just cut and paste the headlines? From your own source:

Quote

Miller told PolitiFact that his $62 trillion estimate was conservative, stopping the count at 2050 rather than the deficit/surplus tipping point of 2063, and using lower annual debt estimates than CBO did.

Whether or not Miller's figure is right -- and the number is certainly in the trillions of dollars -- it's important to note that he was selective in choosing his time frame.

That’s because between 2063 and 2080, the federal debt under Ryan’s plan is projected to disappear. In fact, by 2083, the debt under Ryan’s plan would actually turn into a surplus -- a surplus equal to one-sixth of the nation’s GDP.

His Argument is truthful because of the selective numbers he uses.

Quote

Under this status-quo scenario, CBO sees the deficit growing consistently as a percentage of GDP, from 7.4 percent of GDP in 2020 to 17.2 percent in 2040, 28 percent in 2060 and 42.8 percent in 2080.

The status quo keeps growing the debt. If you dig further you realize that the reason the Ryan plan grows the debt for a while is because it doesn't throw grandma from a cliff. It keeps the governments promise to those age 55 and older.

As I said before. It's a start. no one else even has a plan. All they do is attack people that do because they have special interests to protect.

A far BETTER start would be to raise taxes on the people who have benefited the most from the government largesse of the last 30 years in HOPES of a little trickle down to the "little people"

If this country was to do that... or.. if the last GOAT FUCK STUPID members of the last administration had not cut them even further.. this defict problem would have been nearly gone...by now. 62 more years of GOAT FUCK STUPID??????

WOW.

[hwt 0]

Quote

Building a new economy based on green energy is a good example and one that I do not think Bush (43) would actively pursue.

Who are you wanting to design this economy based on green energy ?
the politicians ? or free enterprise.
If your answer is the government , read on ...

Congress has not passed a budget in two years.

The Congressional Research Service released the report last month which shows that in 2010 the U.S. handed out a total of $1.4bn to 16 foreign countries that held at least $10bn in Treasury securities.
Four countries in the world's top 10 richest received foreign aid last year with China receiving $27.2m, India $126.6m, Brazil $25m, and Russia $71.5m.

Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job

The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters

Despite trillion-dollar deficits, last year's 10,160 earmarks included $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming; and $75,000 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia

Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737

The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida

Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use...

, the federal government has erroneously cut checks to the wrong person for the wrong amount and for the wrong reason – sometimes these misdirected payments even go to dead people or prisoners. These mistakes, though often inadvertent, contributed to the $125 billion in improper payments made in 2010

that government???

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Building a new economy based on green energy is a good example and one that I do not think Bush (43) would actively pursue.

Who are you wanting to design this economy based on green energy ?
the politicians ? or free enterprise.

Both. in the mid 80's the government cut subsidies for private industry development for solar energy in favor of subsidies for the petroleum industry and look where that's gotten us. Many of those AMERICAN companies moved overseas to other countries such as Germany. Now Germany is a world leader in green energy development. If we continue this habit we'll be destined to continue to rely on foreign sources for our energy.

The "problem" with solar in our society is that the source is free and hitting everyone every day.

[idrankwhat 0]

Sorry, forgot to mention that I agree completely with your examples of government waste.Heavy punishment is due those who willfully defraud our government, including the legislators who enable and facilitate that fraud.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

A far BETTER start would be to raise taxes on the people who have benefited the most from the government largesse of the last 30 years in HOPES of a little trickle down to the "little people"

If this country was to do that... or.. if the last GOAT FUCK STUPID members of the last administration had not cut them even further.. this defict problem would have been nearly gone...by now. 62 more years of GOAT FUCK STUPID??????

WOW.

Do you really think that the super rich will pay $.01 more in taxes if you increase them? To borrow a phrase, you are GOAT FUCK STUPID if you think they will. They will have an army of lawyers and lobbyist that make sure there are enough loop holes to escape it all.

Then who is stuck picking up the increase? The rest of the country that you are trying to help. Before we look at increasing taxes, I think a better idea is to fix the tax code.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Building a new economy based on green energy is a good example and one that I do not think Bush (43) would actively pursue.

Who are you wanting to design this economy based on green energy ?
the politicians ? or free enterprise.

Both. in the mid 80's the government cut subsidies for private industry development for solar energy in favor of subsidies for the petroleum industry and look where that's gotten us. Many of those AMERICAN companies moved overseas to other countries such as Germany. Now Germany is a world leader in green energy development. If we continue this habit we'll be destined to continue to rely on foreign sources for our energy.

The "problem" with solar in our society is that the source is free and hitting everyone every day.

Subsidies are a huge part of the problem. The Ultra rich are able to use them to escape taxes.

GE, which made $14billion last year didn't pay a single dime in taxes. Why? Subsidies and tax breaks for "green energy". While Bush may have given tax breaks and subsidies to big oil, Obama is giving it to the other side.

And here is another one for you. Do you think Exxon isn't taking advantage of the "green energy" tax breaks? They are abusing it just like everyone else.

As I said in my last post. If you raise taxes, the rich will find away around it and the class you are trying to help will foot the bill.

Subsidies are also a huge part of the problem.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

While Bush may have given tax breaks and subsidies to big oil, Obama is giving it to the other side.

And that's the way it's supposed to work. You provide subsidies in order to encourage development in areas which will benefit the country. Reagan decided against solar in favor of petroleum. Solar left. California mandated zero emission vehicles and within a decade we had the emergence of a successful electric vehicle. The Feds backed the auto industry lawsuit, ending the mandate, and those cars were destroyed, market demand be damned. The Feds instead decided to implement the SUV tax loophole and look which vehicles hit the road. Yes, it's social engineering but to a certain degree we need that sometimes in order to foster the behavior that's in the best interest of the country. We just need to make sure that that social engineering is beneficial to the country and not parasitic.

But having said that I also agree that our tax code needs to be overhauled. It does favor the wealthy disproportionately. Of course you could spin it as a job creator. There are quite a few people who make a living interpreting it for others.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Subsidies are a huge part of the problem. The Ultra rich are able to use them to escape taxes.

GE, which made $14billion last year didn't pay a single dime in taxes. Why? Subsidies and tax breaks for "green energy". While Bush may have given tax breaks and subsidies to big oil, Obama is giving it to the other side.

There aren't really sides here. If the republicans give subsidies to Oil then GE will move more money towards oil exploration to take advantage of the subsidies. If the democrats move subsidies towards green energy then GE will move more resources there to take advantage of the subsidies.

GE wins either way. R's and D's are two sides of the same coin, both giving huge breaks and corporate welfare to the rich. This is why GE (and other large corporations as well) give to both political parties--they are simply protecting their interests.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

There aren't really sides here. If the republicans give subsidies to Oil then GE will move more money towards oil exploration to take advantage of the subsidies. If the democrats move subsidies towards green energy then GE will move more resources there to take advantage of the subsidies.

GE wins either way. R's and D's are two sides of the same coin, both giving huge breaks and corporate welfare to the rich. This is why GE (and other large corporations as well) give to both political parties--they are simply protecting their interests.

I agree with the sentiment however not the whole statement. Oil exploration will happen regardless of subsidies. As for the green energy development, out of the two it is the only sustainable option.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

A far BETTER start would be to raise taxes on the people who have benefited the most from the government largesse of the last 30 years in HOPES of a little trickle down to the "little people"

If this country was to do that... or.. if the last GOAT FUCK STUPID members of the last administration had not cut them even further.. this defict problem would have been nearly gone...by now. 62 more years of GOAT FUCK STUPID??????

WOW.

Do you really think that the super rich will pay $.01 more in taxes if you increase them? To borrow a phrase, you are GOAT FUCK STUPID if you think they will. They will have an army of lawyers and lobbyist that make sure there are enough loop holes to escape it all.

Then who is stuck picking up the increase? The rest of the country that you are trying to help. Before we look at increasing taxes, I think a better idea is to fix the tax code.

So tell me why the GOAT FUCK STUPID politicians you keep voting for..... do nothing but fix it more and more to the advatage of the rich... and seek to rob from the poor to give the rich more and more...
Fix that first.

Last time I checked.. there were far fewer of the rich in this supposed DEMOCRACY Put lobbyists in jail for bribery..put politicians that take their bribes in jail... after we let out all the dope smokers who should never have been there in the first place since they can do far less damage to this country than the people who really belong there in federal pound them in the ass prison.

[sfzombie 3]

while overhauling the tax code sounds great, as previously stated, the rich will have an army of lawyers to find and use any loopholes. and there will be some.
what would work better would be an elimination of income taxes and an implementation of an across the board user tax. when i was in germany, it was 17%. if you didn't spend any money you didn't pay any taxes. the more you spend, the more you pay. and they had a killer health care system as i recall. from what i was told, everything was free. someone once told me that wasn't the case, but even if it weren't it was a hell of a lot better than what we have here.
if they completely took out the space exploration/nasa side of the budget for a few years at least, they'd save a shitload of money. without the shuttle, all nasa is doing is consuming $$$. and that could be put toward the deficit without hurting any of the programs that are in place to help people on this planet.

http://kitswv.com

[billvon 2,434]

>while overhauling the tax code sounds great, as previously stated, the rich will have
>an army of lawyers to find and use any loopholes. and there will be some.

So get rid of em.

>what would work better would be an elimination of income taxes and an
>implementation of an across the board user tax.

And you really think that there won't be any loopholes on that?

If you know someone who has bought an expensive airplane in the past 10 years ask them if they paid any sales tax on it.

>if they completely took out the space exploration/nasa side of the budget for a few
>years at least, they'd save a shitload of money.

Our current budget: $3.4 trillion
Deficit: $1.3 trillion
NASA's space operations + exploration budget: $9 billion

Percentage of budget: 0.2%
Percentage of deficit: 0.6%

[frequentfaller 0]

everyody in federal govt fired immediately. (including bureaucrats)

citizens above a 110 IQ and no criminal record enter lottery.new govt house senate and president picked every 5 years. it will take a year to figure job out.

Born ok 1st time.

[sfzombie 3]

that's about 9 billion a year, if i recall my math class correctly. and add to that the elimination of any excess spending as mentioned above (read pork) and that should just about do it in 5 to 10 years. oh wait, i forgot about the elimination of income taxes and implementation of spending taxes, make it 2-5 years.
as for the loopholes, they'll never all be closed. and if you think you can, why would you think they can't be closed in the other tax? i think you're just finding fault where there is none. i can spout off as well as the next guy, better sometimes, and you're not making any sense here.
of course, none of this has any chance of working, there's too much money involved for big business, the real government. the only thing that will work is to scrap the whole government and start over again. it wasn't a bad system before all the corruption came into play.

http://kitswv.com

[Amazon 7]

Quote

that's about 9 billion a year, if i recall my math class correctly. and add to that the elimination of any excess spending as mentioned above (read pork) and that should just about do it in 5 to 10 years. oh wait, i forgot about the elimination of income taxes and implementation of spending taxes, make it 2-5 years.
as for the loopholes, they'll never all be closed. and if you think you can, why would you think they can't be closed in the other tax? i think you're just finding fault where there is none. i can spout off as well as the next guy, better sometimes, and you're not making any sense here.
of course, none of this has any chance of working, there's too much money involved for big business, the real government. the only thing that will work is to scrap the whole government and start over again. it wasn't a bad system before all the corruption came into play.

Lets remove the pretense....this is a government of the rich by the rich and for the rich.

Get rid of the politicians... and elections are meaningless so no real need for a goverment. The Right already believes in the infalibility of the Corporate world as owned and run by the rich.

See ya on the RollerBall court.. be sure to pick up your trickle after the bout... if you are still alive.

[billvon 2,434]

>that's about 9 billion a year, if i recall my math class correctly. and add to that the
>elimination of any excess spending as mentioned above (read pork) and that should
>just about do it in 5 to 10 years.

?? If that's all you change, in 10 years our debt will be 13 TRILLION dollars. If you balance the budget, then use the NASA funds to pay the debt, it would take 144 years to pay off the debt we have now. (Assuming zero interest.)