President Obama

[Keven]

3 Years ago today...

Did you see Paul Ryan vs. "Heckuva Job" Geithner yesterday?

Geithner: "We're not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we don't like yours."

[tucker]

In a few short easily understandable sentences could somebody explain Obama math. Or maybe Turbo Timmy could.

[Keven]

In a few short easily understandable sentences could somebody explain Obama math. Or maybe Turbo Timmy could.

Here's some Obama math.

He was in Milwaukee this week at the MasterLock factory.

After he left, he went to Los Angeles for a fundraiser.

They were asking $38,500 a plate to get into this Obama fundraiser.

And this guy is supposed to represent the "99%"? How many of his unemployed college graduate supporters (who can't get a job because "Republicans wrecked the economy") went to that fundraiser?

[Invictus]

[SteveW]

^ Can you say "Liar"?

[Keven]

Nobody has any opinions on Obama's proposed corporate tax reforms?

Nobody... anybody? Bueller. Bueller. Bueller.

[madhatter256]

Doesn't this reduce taxes on the corporations and increases taxes on small business??

[Meridian]

Here's some Obama math.

He was in Milwaukee this week at the MasterLock factory.

After he left, he went to Los Angeles for a fundraiser.

They were asking $38,500 a plate to get into this Obama fundraiser.

And this guy is supposed to represent the "99%"? How many of his unemployed college graduate supporters (who can't get a job because "Republicans wrecked the economy") went to that fundraiser?

Nobody made you go, did they? I people want to fork over big wedge to get special favours, then they can - and will. But it's a vast gulf away from a tax system which favours the rich over the poor, say. that's not something you can avoid. Well, unless you're rich anyway.


M

[Dutchcedar]

From what I gather, it reduces loopholes over here (regular businesses) and adds them over there (green energy and other Obambi donor businesses). And... taxes businesses overseas, somehow.

Its likely the usual shuffle money around to suit Obambi purposes pile of crap that he'll describe as being forward thinking and economically sound.

[madhatter256]

Bush (dubya) charged similar amounts for his campaign back in 2004... it was around that much per plate and the food selection was hamburger and hot dogs and plastic ware....

[Dutchcedar]

Another Obambi estimate is off by more than double...

Medical costs for enrollees in the health-care law’s high-risk insurance pools are expected to more than double initial predictions, the Obama administration said Thursday in a report on the new program.

The health-care law set aside $5 billion for a Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, meant to provide health insurance to those who had been declined coverage by private carriers. Since its launch last summer, nearly 50,000 Americans have enrolled in the program.

...

Those who have enrolled in the program are projected to have significantly higher medical costs than the government initially expected. Each participant is expected to average $28,994 in medical costs in 2012, according to the report, more than double what government-contracted actuaries predicted in November 2010. Then, the analysts expected that the program would cost $13,026 per enrollee.

Hey, he's gonna cut the deficit by half... just give him time.

Suckers.

[Keven]

Nobody made you go, did they? I people want to fork over big wedge to get special favours, then they can - and will. But it's a vast gulf away from a tax system which favours the rich over the poor, say. that's not something you can avoid. Well, unless you're rich anyway.

Sorry, M. But I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

[Dutchcedar]

I get a kink in my neck every time someone (especially Obambi) calls for higher tax rates for people earning lotsa bucks. We hear it so often its easy to conclude it resonates with the populace.

Apparently not.

Three-quarters of likely voters believe the nation’s top earners should pay lower, not higher, tax rates, according to a new poll for The Hill.

The big majority opted for a lower tax bill when asked to choose specific rates; precisely 75 percent said the right level for top earners was 30 percent or below.

The current rate for top earners is 35 percent. Only 4 percent thought it was appropriate to take 40 percent, which is approximately the level that President Obama is seeking from January 2013 onward.

The results speak for themselves. On the personal rate for families earning more than $250K, likely voters chose the following rates:

Rate under 20%: 21%
20%: 17%
25% 23%
30%: 14%
35% 13%
40%: 4%
Over 45%: 2%

So maybe, instead of getting a kink in my neck, I should be laughing at their idiocy, because the people aren't stoopid enough to buy into the scam.

caution: link to right wing blog

[Meridian]

Sorry, M. But I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

You were attacking Obama because he went to a fund-raiser where people were being asked for more than many Americans earn in a year in order to schmooze. You implied that this was hypocritical in light of Obama apparently siding with the 99%. I pointed out that there's a big difference between what you are forced to endure, and what people do voluntarily. I see nothing wrong in agreeing that the wealth divide in the US is steadily getting worse (which only the very rich can influence) and even wanting to do something about it; and tapping mugs for cash, at events only the rich can afford. The biggest danger her is simply that Obama, meeting only the rich, will side with them - which he mostly already does. Are you seriously suggesting that Obama should not accept contributions bigger than (say) $100 as that's all many of the 99% can afford? It's your political system which means that candidates have to spend obscene amounts of money to get elected. I see no virtue in holding one side by claiming that it might be hypocritical to accept money from people that you attack: no-one is making them pay to turn up.


M

[Keven]

Are you seriously suggesting that Obama should not accept contributions bigger than (say) $100 as that's all many of the 99% can afford? It's your political system which means that candidates have to spend obscene amounts of money to get elected. I see no virtue in holding one side by claiming that it might be hypocritical to accept money from people that you attack: no-one is making them pay to turn up.

Yes. That's exactly why I'm saying. It's hypocritical of Obama to side with the poor in this phony class war and say he believes in the Occupy Wall Street movement and whatnot, then go to Hollywood and charge $40,000/plate for a fundraiser. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth.