Typical Romney Supporter

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by xbook

Ok, so because there was an attack in Libya, I can't post anything about Rmoney. Ok, gotcha.

If you want people to not call you on an attempt to misdirect attention or distract, then probably your best bet would be to post something about Romney, or what his designates did or said. This wasnt a post about something that Republicans did or said in any official capacity, so much as it was a post about the behaviour of a dumbass supporter of his, which he cannot control. As was mentioned, both sides have dumbass supporters.

The event you highlighted proves only that dumb people are allowed to publicly express political support. I assumed the video of people excited about their free Obamaphones already established that.

The events in Libya are a much bigger deal, and involve matters that are much more serious.

The fact that Obama and Biden continue to repeatedly fixate on silly memes like "Binders of Women" or "Bigbird", instead of addressing the real problems of the day, is troubling to a lot of people, including many lifelong Democrats.

Which is the bigger crime here, some poorly chosen turn of phrase to describe efforts to improve workplace diversity, or ignoring requests for more security which results in the deaths of 4 Americans?

You cannot deny that liberals would be foaming at the mouth had the tables been turned and a Republican was at the wheel when that happened. Considering how nasty and vitriolic some are when attacking D-list celebrities who dare to express right-wing support on twitter, I cant imagine how venomous they would be on issues that really matter.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

There are dumb people on both sides. A thread that devolves into "Let's see who's party has the stupidest people" is a thread begotten by stupid people.

The biggest scandal this side of Watergate is upon us with Benghazi and the assassination of our Ambassador, a topic mind you no Democrat wants to even get into the facts are so bad against this Administration, that the focus is on idiot voters outside of a debate??

Liberals would be foaming at the mouth had GWB:

• Failed to protect our Embassy on the anniversary of 9/11
• Let Al'Queada become resurgent in North Africa and kill a U.S. Ambassador for the first time in 30 years.
• Lied about the root cause being a video that 19 people saw when it came out 6 months ago
• Deny funding security for the Libyan Ambassador, while at the same time funding green cars for another Embassy
• Go on 2 fund raisers then do Letterman the next day of the attack
• Miss half of his Intelligence Briefings leading up to the attack.

But nevermind... lookey-here at this idiot Romney voter.

Yet you decided to jump in on this thread:

Obama Phone Voter in Ohio

The attack in Libya is a tragedy I agree. There is no way I would ever want to see 4 United States Citizens lose their lives over ANYTHING.

I posted that thread a month after the attack in Libya, 10/12. Right after another current event the vice-presidential debate. Exactly how long must we wait until we can change the subject to something other than the attack in Libya?

The thread I linked to above was started on 9/27. How is that thread not any different than this?

[xbook]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

If you want people to not call you on an attempt to misdirect attention or distract, then probably your best bet would be to post something about Romney, or what his designates did or said. This wasnt a post about something that Republicans did or said in any official capacity, so much as it was a post about the behaviour of a dumbass supporter of his, which he cannot control. As was mentioned, both sides have dumbass supporters.

The event you highlighted proves only that dumb people are allowed to publicly express political support. I assumed the video of people excited about their free Obamaphones already established that.

The events in Libya are a much bigger deal, and involve matters that are much more serious.

The fact that Obama and Biden continue to repeatedly fixate on silly memes like "Binders of Women" or "Bigbird", instead of addressing the real problems of the day, is troubling to a lot of people, including many lifelong Democrats.

Which is the bigger crime here, some poorly chosen turn of phrase to describe efforts to improve workplace diversity, or ignoring requests for more security which results in the deaths of 4 Americans?

You cannot deny that liberals would be foaming at the mouth had the tables been turned and a Republican was at the wheel when that happened. Considering how nasty and vitriolic some are when attacking D-list celebrities who dare to express right-wing support on twitter, I cant imagine how venomous they would be on issues that really matter.

Why didn't you bring this up in the Obama Phone Voter thread? It was also posted well after the attack in Libya?

Only ok to denigrate Obama, but not Mitt Romney?

The double standard expressed here is pretty amazing.

[MiddleAgedAl]

What happened in Benghazi, and the fact that pleas for additional security were ignored, that is a big deal. Even self-professed democrats in this thread have called the handling of the whole affair so far to be a disgrace. With each day, more bits of data get out, and it looks worse and worse with the passage of time, not better.

How long must you wait before people stop talking about it ? I would imagine it will stop getting cycles on the news outlets when a week can go by without increasingly damning revelations about it stop seeping out into the public domain.

It is only a double standard if you can argue that the Obamafone thread was designed to be a similar distraction from an equally egregious dropping of the ball by the Romney camp. You know, look over here at these dumb Obama supporters, pay no attention to the deaths that happened on Mitt's watch. I'm unaware of anything he did that would come close to ranking up with the Benghazi debacle.

Given the amount of screen time the "binders of women" and "big bird" comments have received by the Obama/Biden ticket during speeches, one would think these two stumbles are on par with what happened in Libya. Clearly they are not the same severity, but it's understandable why they would want to keep those occupying peoples attention.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

What happened in Benghazi, and the fact that pleas for additional security were ignored, that is a big deal. Even self-professed democrats in this thread have called the handling of the whole affair so far to be a disgrace. With each day, more bits of data get out, and it looks worse and worse with the passage of time, not better.

How long must you wait before people stop talking about it ? I would imagine it will stop getting cycles on the news outlets when a week can go by without increasingly damning revelations about it stop seeping out into the public domain.

It is only a double standard if you can argue that the Obamafone thread was designed to be a similar distraction from an equally egregious dropping of the ball by the Romney camp. You know, look over here at these dumb Obama supporters, pay no attention to the deaths that happened on Mitt's watch. I'm unaware of anything he did that would come close to ranking up with the Benghazi debacle.

Given the amount of screen time the "binders of women" and "big bird" comments have received by the Obama/Biden ticket during speeches, one would think these two stumbles are on par with what happened in Libya. Clearly they are not the same severity, but it's understandable why they would want to keep those occupying peoples attention.

But you willingly took part in that discussion in the "Obamaphone" thread on Sept 27. Which is 2 weeks prior to me even creating the "Romney Supporter" thread. Good job hypocrite.

[Purple Derple]

xbook what are your reasons for supporting the President for reelection?

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yet you decided to jump in on this thread:

Obama Phone Voter in Ohio

The attack in Libya is a tragedy I agree. There is no way I would ever want to see 4 United States Citizens lose their lives over ANYTHING.

I posted that thread a month after the attack in Libya, 10/12. Right after another current event the vice-presidential debate. Exactly how long must we wait until we can change the subject to something other than the attack in Libya?

The thread I linked to above was started on 9/27. How is that thread not any different than this?

Because it wasn't close to a SCANDAL as it is now..

If you recall, the line proffered in those convening two weeks after the 11th were non-stop "The video is the cause of the attack".

If you took the time to read all the Libyan and Benghazi threads, I've been commenting consistently about the issue with no liberal wanting to even delve into the discussion.

Since the 27th - we've found out that the administration has been pervasively lying about the accounts on the ground, the Ambassador's journal was picked up by reporters, that no FBI agents made it to the site of the attack till weeks later, that the Ambassador has sent cables to the administration asking for security help and were denied, and we had a congressional hearing on the events discrediting the administration's account and now the CIA is saying the Libyan CIA station chief sent a cable stating it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours.

It snowballed from may have been a run-of-the-mill tragedy, that no one was paying attention to, to a full fledge Watergate-level Cover-up.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by Purple Derple

xbook what are your reasons for supporting the President for reelection?

Well in no particular order, here are a few:

Supports Same Sex Marriage
Passed Health Care Reform
Passed the Stimulus
Passed Wall Street Reform
Followed through in ending the War in Iraq
Followed through on Eliminating Osama bin laden
Provided the Auto industry with the bailouts, and instituted cash for clunkers
Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell
Increased support for Veterans
Isn't using the advisors Bush used to guide his policy, like Rmoney is

Originally Posted by rgrovr

Because it wasn't close to a SCANDAL as it is now..

If you recall, the line proffered in those convening two weeks after the 11th were non-stop "The video is the cause of the attack".

If you took the time to read all the Libyan and Benghazi threads, I've been commenting consistently about the issue with no liberal wanting to even delve into the discussion.

Since the 27th - we've found out that the administration has been pervasively lying about the accounts on the ground, the Ambassador's journal was picked up by reporters, that no FBI agents made it to the site of the attack till weeks later, that the Ambassador has sent cables to the administration asking for security help and were denied, and we had a congressional hearing on the events discrediting the administration's account and now the CIA is saying the Libyan CIA station chief sent a cable stating it was a terrorist attack within 24 hours...

So what exactly is the statute of limitations on bringing up anything critical of Romney or his supporters?

[alynM3]

I was trying so hard not to respond to this thread but I feel like I wouldn't be doing my duty as a conservative had I not.

On the Libya issue... The fact that 4 Americans were killed overseas in a country with a tremendous amount of civil unrest is a shame and is truly sad and unfortunate. However it should be noted that Americans are killed just about every week in these numbers serving the country overseas. To isolate this one event as a failure of administration's foreign policy is probably not going to change the way liberals think or vote.

I guess if we look at the facts; the requests for additional security, the fact that there was tremendous unrest, and the fact that it was the anniversary of the worst terror attack against the US in our history, we can certainly argue that more assistance should have been given to that embassy. But couldn't the left legitimately argue that the nearly 3000 victims killed on 9/11 was a failure of a magnitude 750 times greater than this single incident? And despite the "failure" of that administration to protect those 3000 Americans (on domestic soil, and not half way across the world), the president who presided during that event won a second term. I truly believe that was as a result of the way the country came together for a common cause.

Full disclosure, I am a conservative, and I believe that for the most part (with a few exceptions) the current administration has dealt with foreign policy at an exceptional level. Both sides will argue back and forth about points that best serve their interests... But ultimately this gets us nowhere as a nation.

Unfortunately both sides are so divisive right now, perhaps had the 4 Americans killed this year been 4000, and had it happened on US soil... We might be able to put politics aside again to move the country in a positive direction, get Americans back to work, continue on a path of recovery, and stop using terms like 47% and 1%.

Im a proud american, and whether obama or romney is my president I will always be a proud american. Rant over....

[Purple Derple]

Originally Posted by xbook

Well in no particular order, here are a few:

Supports Same Sex Marriage
Passed Health Care Reform
Passed the Stimulus
Passed Wall Street Reform
Followed through in ending the War in Iraq
Followed through on Eliminating Osama bin laden
Provided the Auto industry with the bailouts, and instituted cash for clunkers
Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell
Increased support for Veterans
Isn't using the advisors Bush used to guide his policy, like Rmoney is

These are all good reasons at face value and any rational person would agree with them. I personally disagree with some of them on a deeper level however.

Let me talk about one in particular.

Wall Street reform is good and necessary but perhaps misguided in places. For example the Vockler rule within Dodd-Frank is both restrictive (by design) and unclear (by accident) in regulating banks' ability to trade their own money. Empirically, it has resulted in uncertainty in the markets and a huge evaporation of liquidity which means things are not valued fairly, there is less information available, and markets move more slowly and with more volatility. This is a huge brake on financial markets and ultimately the economy. If you don't think this has contributed greatly to a slow recovery of the economy, to uncertainty in the economy and to a sustained high unemployment rate, then I think you probably haven't seen its effects first hand.

Publicly, Dodd-Frank was sold to the American people as a regulation on an evil and greedy Wall Street that took on too much risk at the cost to regular Americans, and that was contrasted with the benevolent actions of Main Street. This, in my opinion, is a disgusting political distortion of the truth for two reasons.

First, certainly there was misunderstood risk and in some cases malevolent risk being taken by people in financial institutions, but that was not limited to the private sector at all. One of the biggest culprits of relaxed lending practices were government agencies, FNMA, FHLMC, GNMA etc. When private banks did it, it was called 'predatory lending'. When government agencies did it, it was called 'everyone deserves a house, car, college degree'. So to blame only the private sector while glossing over the missteps of the public agencies is to not be truthful about the situation. Why would they do this? My guess is because they don't want to blame themselves, naturally, but also because they'd like to in the future make sure that 'everyone deserves a house, car, college degree' etc.

Secondly, by painting the picture this way, Wall Street vs Main Street, this administration has divided the country deeply. The President, when he was running for office in 2008, said he would work together and unify the country. This kind of behavior does just the opposite. Scapegoating a group of people for everyone's problems tells people 'this wasn't your fault so you don't have to take it upon yourself to fix it'. Look at the stupidity of the occupy wall street movement for example. What exactly are they doing to help themselves? They've been made to feel like victims of someone else's greed and so the result is that they camp out in a park and don't shower and do drugs and worse, instead of lifting themselves out of student debt, taking initiative, and for example, starting a business on top of which they could build their lives. By the way, these are people that took on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to get degrees in history, English, music, international studies, religious studies, and other interdisciplinary liberal arts. $40k a year in tuition to get a degree that does nothing for you towards a career and it is someone else's fault. These are not technical degrees that employers overwhelmingly want. It should not be surprising to anyone that the most sought after graduate comes with a degree in engineering, accounting, medicine, computer science and marketing. There is no problem with doing what you like and following your dream, but for them the risk for doing so should have been assessed before they graduated to a mountain of debt and no one looking to hire women's studies majors.

Finally, scapegoating a group for everyone's problems breeds animosity. Ask the Jewish population in Germany and Europe during the 1920s and 1930s how they feel about being scapegoated for economic problems? I don't think you will get an answer.

I totally agree that it was necessary to reform the financial system. I just think it was too politically motivated and that has resulted in an act that is not in the best interest of the American people. So if I were to give Obama credit for this, as you have, then I would say it is not the best he could have done. That he has bandaided on problem with another, just as the Bush administration had done with the dot-com bubble.

Full disclosure: I work in finance in New York City, but I am not your typical bmw-owning finance yuppie. I don't live in NYC. I live with my family to save money and contribute to them. I went to a liberal arts college and majored in history and economics and political science. I voted for Bush and McCain.

[smohr33]

Originally Posted by xbook

Ok, so because there was an attack in Libya, I can't post anything about Rmoney. Ok, gotcha.

Nobody said you couldn't. Just realize that stupid resides on both sides...

[Purple Derple]

Originally Posted by smohr33

Nobody said you couldn't. Just realize that stupid resides on both sides...

There is a lot of Michael Moore style dishonest video editing here it seems to me. Not a fair representation imho.

[Killerfish2012]

Originally Posted by alynM3

I was trying so hard not to respond to this thread but I feel like I wouldn't be doing my duty as a conservative had I not

What's your definition of conservative?

Originally Posted by alynM3

On the Libya issue... The fact that 4 Americans were killed overseas in a country with a tremendous amount of civil unrest is a shame and is truly sad and unfortunate. However it should be noted that Americans are killed just about every week in these numbers serving the country overseas. To isolate this one event as a failure of administration's foreign policy is probably not going to change the way liberals think or vote.

Well, it was John McCains idea, that we do what we did in Lybia, so thank goodness he didn't become president?

Originally Posted by alynM3

I guess if we look at the facts; the requests for additional security, the fact that there was tremendous unrest, and the fact that it was the anniversary of the worst terror attack against the US in our history, we can certainly argue that more assistance should have been given to that embassy. But couldn't the left legitimately argue that the nearly 3000 victims killed on 9/11 was a failure of a magnitude 750 times greater than this single incident? And despite the "failure" of that administration to protect those 3000 Americans (on domestic soil, and not half way across the world), the president who presided during that event won a second term. I truly believe that was as a result of the way the country came together for a common cause.

The so-called freedom fighters that toppled gadaffi were mostly foreigners, who had just come back from fighting americans in Iraq, and Afghanistan. So, what did you expect?

Originally Posted by alynM3

Full disclosure, I am a conservative, and I believe that for the most part (with a few exceptions) the current administration has dealt with foreign policy at an exceptional level. Both sides will argue back and forth about points that best serve their interests... But ultimately this gets us nowhere as a nation.

We'll find out the consequences of what they are currently doing long after they have all left office. Kindda how we found out it was a bad idea to support bin Laden, and company against the solviets, in Afghanistan, during regan's administration.

[Killerfish2012]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

There are dumb people on both sides. A thread that devolves into "Let's see who's party has the stupidest people" is a thread begotten by stupid people.

The biggest scandal this side of Watergate is upon us with Benghazi and the assassination of our Ambassador, a topic mind you no Democrat wants to even get into the facts are so bad against this Administration, that the focus is on idiot voters outside of a debate??

Liberals would be foaming at the mouth had GWB:

• Failed to protect our Embassy on the anniversary of 9/11
• Let Al'Queada become resurgent in North Africa and kill a U.S. Ambassador for the first time in 30 years.
• Lied about the root cause being a video that 19 people saw when it came out 6 months ago
• Deny funding security for the Libyan Ambassador, while at the same time funding green cars for another Embassy
• Go on 2 fund raisers then do Letterman the next day of the attack
• Miss half of his Intelligence Briefings leading up to the attack.

But nevermind... lookey-here at this idiot Romney voter.

US embassies are bombed, and burned to the ground, regularly. Take the sudan for instance. Why would the US keep on rebuilding their embassy there, after it's been suicide bombed, like 10 times, already. Instead of trying to get manipulated by two guys in suits, who have no idea how to run a country, why not ask yourself: why is it always the US that gets it's embassy messed up? Are there logical reasons why those who hate us do?

[miiipilot]

Originally Posted by smohr33

Nobody said you couldn't. Just realize that stupid resides on both sides...

my poor poor university.

Great school, but it was always very liberal.

Gotta sell the sizzle not the steak. Obama is the sizzle.

[Purple Derple]

Originally Posted by xbook

Well in no particular order, here are a few:

Supports Same Sex Marriage
Passed Health Care Reform
Passed the Stimulus
Passed Wall Street Reform
Followed through in ending the War in Iraq
Followed through on Eliminating Osama bin laden
Provided the Auto industry with the bailouts, and instituted cash for clunkers
Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell
Increased support for Veterans
Isn't using the advisors Bush used to guide his policy, like Rmoney is

Hi xbook,

Do you have anything to say in reply to my commentary? I was hoping you would. I did not intend to end discussion outright with my post. I realize, however, it is easier to have an opinion about something you don't know about than to actually have a discussion about it.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by Purple Derple

Hi xbook,

Do you have anything to say in reply to my commentary? I was hoping you would. I did not intend to end discussion outright with my post. I realize, however, it is easier to have an opinion about something you don't know about than to actually have a discussion about it.

I don't think it's the president who is pushing "main street vs wall street". A good number of people had massive amounts of their wealth wiped out by the financial collapse in '08. The sentiment across this nation about wall street has come from that collapse. Look at the occupy movement, he didn't take part, or organize those demonstrations. Those were protests organized by citizens. Those were rallies that expressed how a number of our citizens felt.

Him saying the taxes at the top need to be raised from 35% to 39%, isn't class warfare, it isn't wealth redistribution, its just higher taxes to pay for bills we have run up. There wasn't class warfare n the 90's when the tax rates were at 39%. In fact I recall the nation doing rather well financially. Too bad we can't find a new industry to make tons of money from like the dot com bubble.

I don't think President Obama is trying to vilify the financial sector in a similar way to Jews in Nazi Germany. That statement is a bit of a stretch.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by xbook

I don't think it's the president who is pushing "main street vs wall street". A good number of people had massive amounts of their wealth wiped out by the financial collapse in '08. The sentiment across this nation about wall street has come from that collapse. Look at the occupy movement, he didn't take part, or organize those demonstrations. Those were protests organized by citizens. Those were rallies that expressed how a number of our citizens felt.

Him saying the taxes at the top need to be raised from 35% to 39%, isn't class warfare, it isn't wealth redistribution, its just higher taxes to pay for bills we have run up. There wasn't class warfare n the 90's when the tax rates were at 39%. In fact I recall the nation doing rather well financially. Too bad we can't find a new industry to make tons of money from like the dot com bubble.

I don't think President Obama is trying to vilify the financial sector in a similar way to Jews in Nazi Germany. That statement is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure exactly how the rationalization works in your head, but I do know that it makes no sense. When you increase taxes more on one group and lower it for another, how is this not "redistributing wealth"? That's exactly what it is, you just don't want it to be branded that way. Even more money is coming out of one group to go to a government that exists for the benefit of everyone, and less money is coming out of another group to go to a government that exists for the benefit of everyone.

"Wealth" is a word that is more often associated with the higher tax bracket, so when you are taking more money from that bracket and less from others, you are re-distributing the burden that one group is shouldering.

Do you think that the people that are paying those higher bills see it like you do, that it's just "paying higher taxes to pay for the bills that we have run up?"

Who has been running up those bills during the last 4 years, I forget? Oh, yea, something to do with George Bush, how soon I forget.

[Purple Derple]

Originally Posted by xbook

I don't think it's the president who is pushing "main street vs wall street". A good number of people had massive amounts of their wealth wiped out by the financial collapse in '08. The sentiment across this nation about wall street has come from that collapse. Look at the occupy movement, he didn't take part, or organize those demonstrations. Those were protests organized by citizens. Those were rallies that expressed how a number of our citizens felt.

Him saying the taxes at the top need to be raised from 35% to 39%, isn't class warfare, it isn't wealth redistribution, its just higher taxes to pay for bills we have run up. There wasn't class warfare n the 90's when the tax rates were at 39%. In fact I recall the nation doing rather well financially. Too bad we can't find a new industry to make tons of money from like the dot com bubble.

I don't think President Obama is trying to vilify the financial sector in a similar way to Jews in Nazi Germany. That statement is a bit of a stretch.

First let me speak to the response to my example of the Jews in between the war Europe. I do not believe I was comparing Obama in his entirety to Nazi Germany and I didn't intend to. I was talking about scapegoating as a political tactic and how dangerous and destructive it is. The Jewish history in Nazi Germany is the most known and powerful example of this and it should serve as the strongest warning against scapegoating. To that effect, I believe I have still made a good point against the scapegoating of the wealthy and of the financial sector. And if you think it is a stretch, remember that the Nazis drummed up support for their diabolical plans by depicting the Jews as those who achieved success on the backs of others while things were going poorly for so many. Sounds familiar to me. You can't just call it a stretch simply because it is a cliched and tacky comparison. I don't think Obama is entertaining genocide and even social cleansing and any of that. So in that manner, what I said is a stretch—his ends are not remotely the same, but his means are. I just don't think he realizes the unintended consequences of such divisive politics. People need to remember exactly why scapegoating is evil.

Well, if you accept that Obama as the President is responsible for the good things that happen under his administration even if he himself is not the original author of them, then you must accept that he is equally responsible for things for the bad things of similar origin. It is true that he is the President and the buck really does stop with him. So when the government, under his leadership, is fanning the flames of class warfare, does that buck not stop with him also?

Lets look at some examples:



Don't forget about what I said about the participants leading up to the financial crisis. It was just as much government agencies as it was the private financial sector. Obama only mentions one of those.



She never ceases to amaze me when she speaks.

OWS was indeed organized by citizens and not politicians,but I disagree that it was the result of

Originally Posted by xbook

massive amounts of their wealth wiped out by the financial collapse in '08

OWS was comprised of young people who did not have wealth wiped out because they never had a lifetime to accumulate it in the first place. Furthermore, you're kidding yourself if you believe that the rhetoric of this administration didn't culture the environment for OWS to come about with it's character of hate for "the 1%" and the financial sector entirely. Nancy Pelosi was quoted talking about budget negotiations July 2011, prior to OWS beginning when she said, "We get the sacrifice, they share the wealth". Who is the 'we' and who is the 'they' do you think she means? I think if the terms "the 99%"and "the 1%" had been coined by then, she would have used them. In an interview on ABC news on Oct 18th, 2011, Obama himself said this about the OWS movement; "The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side." Yes, he even used the term 'their side', implying that there were in fact opposing 'sides' that one could sympathize with. Is this not divisive language? My original argument still stands and I do not think you have refuted it. I have simply tried to give you additional evidence here.

Now, I didn't mention taxes at all in my original post, but now that you bring it up, there is plenty of class warfare attitude in their rhetoric about taxes. In fact, I think that you spontaneously brought it up, though defending it, tells me that you already know this.

Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate: “They're holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the super wealthy. The middle class got knocked on their heels. The great recession crushed them. They need some help now. Whatever you call it, the bottom line is people are going to have to pay more money out of their pocket and the families I know, the families I come from, they don't have the money. And they're holding hostage, the middle class tax cut because they say we won't pass, we won't continue the middle class tax cut unless you give the tax cut for the super wealthy. Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?” Who is he talking about? Who is ‘they’ and ‘us’? Is this not divisive?

Certainly divisive language is what helped Obama’s amazing (I don't say that sarcastically) campaign in 2008 when he pledged to repeal the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Being savvy as he is, of course, he was careful to phrase it that way so to remind people that he wouldn't raise their taxes, only those of the wealthiest Americans. While the Bush cuts were for ALL tax paying Americans as you should know, Obama framed it as if Bush cut taxes for purely for the wealthy. Simple, brilliant, and effective as a campaign strategy, this also had the effect of painting an 'us vs them' picture for anyone who didn't consider themselves wealthy--even if their own taxes were effectively lowered by those cuts! What is crazier, to me, is that the cuts themselves were progressive and therefore aimed more at the middle class than the wealthy to begin with. It is pure politics of envy that Obama has painted them as tax cuts to the wealthy--and divisive too.

Intelligently, he never actually did repeal the Bush cuts because the realities of the economy deemed that would be insane. Yet throughout his presidency he still referred to unfair tax breaks for the wealthy.

I personally recognize the situation as this: Raising taxes is a sure brake on the economy. That is an indisputable fact and the same one that motivated Obama to not repeal the Bush tax cuts like he said he would. However, I do think that higher income earners could and should pay more. We already have a very progressive income tax structure in this country where the "1%" pays about 40% of all income taxes. The top 5%? About 60% of all income taxes. Top 10%? About 70% Wait, bottom 50%? about 3%. How Warren Buffet can say the wealthy don't pay enough taxes is beyond me. But personally, I STILL think that top earners can pay more. Why? Not because they have tons of money so lets take it from them. No, because top earners also happen to be the kinds of people that persevere despite challenges and find ways to make it work. It is this personality trait that makes them top earners to begin with. Entrepreneurial spirit will not be crushed out by a 3% raise on a top bracket. But Obama doesn't sell it this way. He sells it as 'they need to pitch in more, because they have more'. This is a perfect way to breed animosity--and he has. Animosity by one group--class--towards another.

Again, Obama made a pledge to unite the country when he became President, but his actions in office have done just the opposite. These are his political tactic. These are divisive politics of envy that skirt the lines of inciting class warfare. Surely you can see this effect happening around you, can't you?

[txz4]

Originally Posted by xbook

I don't think it's the president who is pushing "main street vs wall street". A good number of people had massive amounts of their wealth wiped out by the financial collapse in '08. The sentiment across this nation about wall street has come from that collapse. Look at the occupy movement, he didn't take part, or organize those demonstrations. Those were protests organized by citizens. Those were rallies that expressed how a number of our citizens felt.

Him saying the taxes at the top need to be raised from 35% to 39%, isn't class warfare, it isn't wealth redistribution, its just higher taxes to pay for bills we have run up. There wasn't class warfare n the 90's when the tax rates were at 39%. In fact I recall the nation doing rather well financially. Too bad we can't find a new industry to make tons of money from like the dot com bubble.

I don't think President Obama is trying to vilify the financial sector in a similar way to Jews in Nazi Germany. That statement is a bit of a stretch.

I think you're completely correct xbook. When Obama issued temporary exemptions from Obamacare to large corporations like McDonalds and didnt even consider helping my family's small business, that has been built from the ground up in the poor side of my city 30 years ago (older than me), he was pretty clear about his beliefs.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by txz4

I think you're completely correct xbook. When Obama issued temporary exemptions from Obamacare to large corporations like McDonalds and didnt even consider helping my family's small business, that has been built from the ground up in the poor side of my city 30 years ago (older than me), he was pretty clear about his beliefs.

Maybe your family business should think about providing benefits for their employees.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by xbook

Maybe your family business should think about providing benefits for their employees.

A small family business that cannot possibly enjoy the economies of scale that a McDonalds does, should be held to a higher standard than McDonalds when it comes to benefits offered ?

I thought the Democratic ideology was to exempt the little guy from punitive taxes and hold the big rich guy's feet to the fire, because he can afford to endure it more than the little guy can ?