Jump to content
wevsspot

Interesting Perspective on the United States

Recommended Posts

Just because the President can write executive orders that circumvent Congress, doesn't mean that I support writing into law his ability to raise the debt ceiling without seeking congressional input or approval. I'd make the same statement regardless of who the President is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the President can write executive orders that circumvent Congress, doesn't mean that I support writing into law his ability to raise the debt ceiling without seeking congressional input or approval. I'd make the same statement regardless of who the President is.

 

 

It is absolutely insane. If you look at the last 4 presidents the amount of executive orders is just mind blowing. It just seems to me presidents do whatever the hell they please now.

 

I meant to mention this in my earlier post.

 

Every gun related issue now makes headlines. From the smallest to the largest incidents. I even have to listen to it during football games now. Guns are not evil but people are.

 

"From my cold dead hands"

Edited by InCrYsIs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I even have to listen to it during football games now. Guns are not evil but people are.

"From my cold dead hands"

You apparently had to suffer through the Costas gun control commentary during last night's football game too. Careful, it won't be long before our President feels so emboldened by the liberal media types and Hollywood blow hards that he writes an Executive Order banning private ownership of firearms all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, all this gun control business with Obama. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/15/nra-right-obama-coming-our-guns/

 

No Democrat will touch gun control now, you know why? Because gun control is not a big enough agenda to get liberal voters not to vote for a Democratic candidate. You don't see any liberals crying that they won't vote for a candidate that doesn't restrict gun control. Any Democrat that touches it will lose Conservative votes. You can quote me on it, President Obama will not touch gun control, or he risks having the next Democratic candidate losing some conservative votes.

 

Not saying gun control is right or wrong, but the failure of our system is that the ones that can make a change don't because they're afraid of retaliation from voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, all this gun control business with Obama. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/15/nra-right-obama-coming-our-guns/

 

No Democrat will touch gun control now, you know why? Because gun control is not a big enough agenda to get liberal voters not to vote for a Democratic candidate. You don't see any liberals crying that they won't vote for a candidate that doesn't restrict gun control. Any Democrat that touches it will lose Conservative votes. You can quote me on it, President Obama will not touch gun control, or he risks having the next Democratic candidate losing some conservative votes.

 

Not saying gun control is right or wrong, but the failure of our system is that the ones that can make a change don't because they're afraid of retaliation from voters.

 

Okay, You can not quell the people if they own guns. He has publicly said he wants semi-autos gone. It is on the record. With the help of the media and the corrupt, partisan supreme court he can find a way.

 

People need to understand something. This is not out of the realm of possibility. They can not take away the 2nd amendment but they can interpret it how they want to benefit their need. You have plenty of liberals going on record saying we should go back to flint lock black powder guns as the only thing CITIZENS can own.

 

People better start understanding that nothing is guaranteed anymore. We may have the fight of our lives looming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, You can not quell the people if they own guns. He has publicly said he wants semi-autos gone. It is on the record. With the help of the media and the corrupt, partisan supreme court he can find a way.

 

People need to understand something. This is not out of the realm of possibility. They can not take away the 2nd amendment but they can interpret it how they want to benefit their need. You have plenty of liberals going on record saying we should go back to flint lock black powder guns as the only thing CITIZENS can own.

 

People better start understanding that nothing is guaranteed anymore. We may have the fight of our lives looming.

Please, at least check your facts. I even provided you a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, nothing in those links saying, "He has publicly said he wants semi-autos gone". Plus, you're citing from organizations with a political association that lean towards Republicans and very opinionated and not showing a shred of proof. Along with your "gem" quote, you're nitpicking words like, "misuse" and assumptions of what "under the radar" when off-teleprompter might mean. Cling to your 20th century gun ideals when the rest of the world moves towards the 21st century. Once someone invents personal shield generators like in Frank Herbert's "Dune", your guns will be useless until someone shoots lasguns and contact with the shields causes sub-atomic explosions.

 

I'm going to bookmark this thread and this post and we'll see what happens in the next 4 years. In the next election, I'm sure I'm going to read another thread saying the non-Republican are going to take your guns... or might. The Top 1%'s going to take your houses, your jobs, and your money. They don't want your guns. They have enough money to pay for armed guards and mansions with full security. You can hunt for your food with full automatic assault rifles for all they care.

 

That sounds familiar I remember back in 2008 when we had these same arguments on the forums

 

http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.php?showtopic=156462&hl=%202008%20%20elections&st=96

 

No offense to anyone in the quotes anyone remember what was said 4 years ago.

 

I remember the socialist arguments.

 

Okay Obama wants to socialize the United States. That can absolutely not happen. That right there should disqualify him. He wants to take my money and give it to others which just pisses me off. Did you know that he can not account for his money. He and his wife make x amount of dollars. He can't produce anything on the rest of his money or where it came from. He can't produce documentation on his money but I have to give mine away. To hell with that.

http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.php?showtopic=156462&view=findpost&p=1596041

 

Some people prefer Marxism and government intervention in private lives. Others don't.

http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.php?showtopic=156462&view=findpost&p=1582418

 

I wasn't going to post these thoughts but after that especially bile filled rant from Angry_Games I thought I should go ahead.

 

Watch what happens in the House and Senate during the next session.

 

Democrats will start making fundamental changes in how the congress works.

 

They'll change the rules to get around not having a super-majority.

 

The next stop will be the mislabeled Fairness Doctrine to silence their critics.

 

Along with the drive-by-media, any member of Congress that isn't "working with" the President will be called out as an obstructionist and the crazies on the Internet will be mobilized against them.

 

I truly hope I'm wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has gotten a bit off track so I'm going to try to bring it back to the original discussion of taxes and spending.

One thing I do know as of this morning - the proposal put on the table by POTUS just isn't going to fly. Why would Congress give POTUS unfettered authority to lift the debt ceiling from here on out without Congressional approval? How does a 1.6 trillion increase in revenue balance the budget with only 800 billion in proposed spending cuts????? How are the proposed spending cuts affected by the new proposed "stimulus package" and extension of other social services?

The point is that we're not trying to solve the entire debt crisis in a month, but we need to avoid the fiscal cliff if we want to avoid going back into a depression. The President's proposal of $1.6 trillion in revenue and $800 billion in spending cuts is far better than Boehner's counteroffer of $800 billion in revenue and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts to social programs, such as medicare, medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security. As I outlined in my previous posts on entitlement spending, there is a right time and a wrong time to use austerity, and during high unemployment, it's the wrong time.

 

Tax rates will have to increases somewhere in order to reduce our deficit, but nobody wants it to be on themselves. We can argue all day about how increasing taxes will increase the size of government, but that doesn't mean that we can avoid paying the taxes to run the current size of our government. It was completely irresponsible of Bush to cut all levels of income tax and the capital gains tax while he was busy increasing the size of government and increasing spending.

 

So if I were a policymaker and I wanted to look at realistic solutions to averting the fiscal cliff and solving our debt crisis, I'd take up the Republican's offer to cap deductions, but I wouldn't take it to such an extreme of $17000 as Romney's plan did. I would say $40000 to $50000 is a reasonable target. I'd raise the top 2% tax bracket back up to 39.6% as it was before the Bush tax cuts, but I'd also look at other revenue sources that have worked in other countries. A carbon tax is very popular in Europe and has been rather effective at reducing carbon emissions, raising revenue, and improving quality of life. A value-added tax is very popular worldwide, and while it is criticized for disproportionately affecting the poor, many countries have used the VAT to raise revenue and then cut other taxes on the poor to offset this. It has also proven to reduce consumer costs in Canada since it was implemented in 1991. A simple change like removing some of the corporate loopholes in international laws that allow that wealthiest corporations to avoid taxes would even allow us to cut the corporate tax rate to around 28% to increase growth. And if we really wanted to do the unspeakable in the US, we could implement a 0.5% financial transaction tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our government is like my five year old kids used to be............. give them an inch and they will attempt a yard. Give them a dollar and they will ask for two. The better lesson is to learn how to live within the inch or the dollar that you've already been given. A balanced budget is just that..... a balanced budget. But it goes beyond just balancing the budget, it also has to include debt reduction. And the only way that happens is to increase revenue to some magnitude above expenditures over a long period of time. By your line of thinking its perfectly ok to strangle my kids, grandkids and great grandkids with a debt burden that is unsustainable, as long as it doesn't affect vulnerable folks immediately or short term.

 

I've got no problem rolling back pre-Bush tax rates on individual income tax for earners in the highest income bracket - but I'll never agree that a single person earning $200,000 or a couple earning $250,000 makes them "rich". That threshold is too low. I'm all for fixing the loopholes in corporate tax rates and eliminating abuse of the tax system by the uber-wealthy too. I'm all for keeping middle income and low income tax rates where they are. Deduction caps for high earners, scaled social benefits for high earners and other tax code revisions that further the goal of making the tax system in the US fair for all the citizens should also be on the table.

 

Carbon taxes and VAT.........? Are you really from Texas because I didn't know that there was anyone that liberal living in the state. Tax increases MUST be accompanied by enough debt reduction to produce a budget that yields more revenue than what is spent. It doesn't matter how bad the short term impact is.

 

How long could you continue to balance your personal budget by borrowing what you needed to spend on a daily, monthly or yearly basis. And, then at what point have you given up complete control of your own destiny because you are so deeply indebted to your debtors?

 

I would even go along with a proposal (written into law) that all new tax revenues (regardless of source) are earmarked towards balancing the budget and deficit reduction. But you know the problem with that???? It will never happen, because the parties in power will always find a way to spend and overspend the existing revenue AND the new revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×