Obama And His Band of Cowards

[hypocritexposer]

November 22, 2011
Obama And His Band of Cowards
Mercer Tyson

These guys are amazing. They chicken out on everything important and blame the GOP.

My wife and I just got back from a vacation. I was hoping to play golf, and she had projects she was interested in tackling. Instead, I took care of business, and she paid the bills. That's what you should do: Take care of things that are necessary and are required, and get to the fun stuff later. Right? Isn't that the way you do it?

Apparently not if you are President Obama and his merry band of Democrats. They had two years of complete Federal control, including a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate, to do whatever they wanted.

Did they present a budget? Nope. Budgets are a primary function of government -- but not fun or showy. In fact, budgets only upset people if there is any hardship and somebody loses. Since Democrats can't make hard choices, they kicked the proverbial can down the road.

They showed their cowardice right there. They could have passed the tax increases they so eloquently call for now. But then they would have had to own them, and when the economy shrank, they would have been held responsible.

And they could have made spending cuts. They say they want cuts, but we all know that's a joke. Since the majority of beneficiaries of government spending are constituents of the Democratic Party, cutting spending goes against their grain. Being the party that likes to portray itself on the side of the people, any cuts are just simply out of the question (other than defense, of course, because people and countries hating America are merely figments of imagination in the minds of Republicans)

So what do you do? Nothing. Just wait a few years and blame the GOP.

Did they do anything to reduce the national debt? Nah. They made a phony attempt with health care. But only the most bald-faced non-truth tellers can look you in the eye and believe ObamaCare will cut medical spending and reduce the debt. That was true then, and it is true now. I mean, really. Dropping costs by adding 35M+ non-paying people to a health care system? Especially when you set up a system that:

-Allows and encourages people to drop out of medical insurance plans they are now taking part in and then buy insurance if and when they need it. The penalty of $750 for not having health insurance is so far below the price of insurance premiums that younger and healthier people would be foolish to participate;

-Requires insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions; and

-Does not allow insurance companies to deny coverage for virtually any reason.

Nope. That did nothing about the deficit -- except add to it.

How about creating jobs? Again, a big zero. Okay, they say they created or saved 3.5M jobs. It is probably indisputable that some jobs were created or saved. I mean, you can't spend $800B without somebody getting some money. Let's see, if it actually were true that 3.5M jobs were created, simple calculation, $800,000,000,000 divided by 3,500,000 equals... Oh! $228,571 per job! Nice! I want one of those jobs! Oh -- we have to pay it back? And now the jobs are gone?

Hope and Change? Hope's gone, but there has been plenty of change. Unfortunately, none of it is good.

The summary is really short and simple. The Dems had two years to do anything they wanted and instead of doing what they were supposed to do, they managed only to pass extremely costly, stupid and unpopular health care legislation, and financial reform bills that are stifling the economy -- all the while blaming the GOP for their lack of accomplishment.

Democrats are the worst kind of coward, and Obama represents them perfectly. He does nothing constructive and blames someone else. Even tsunamis.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/obama_and_his_band_of_cowards.html

 

[TSR]

Well I'm glad the rich weren't beneficiaries during the Bush era. What a relief!

 

[Whitewing]

We're almost 3 years into this president's term. I think we can quit blaming Bush. Unless you're OT. In that case, carry on.

 

[TSR]

No blaming, just a statement.

 

[Whitewing]

I wish I could find that Robert Reich piece he did for Salon Magazine recently. There was a RR classic in that one......something to the effect of the top 1% in this country get XX% of the income, blah blah blah

He can't bring himself to use the word.

:lol:

 

[hypocritexposer]

Well I'm glad the rich weren't beneficiaries during the Bush era. What a relief!

The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, not just the rich. Did you want the middle class to receive preferential treatment?

 

[TSR]

Well I'm glad the rich weren't beneficiaries during the Bush era. What a relief!

The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, not just the rich. Did you want the middle class to receive preferential treatment?

Evidently, judging by the percentages of increases of wealth of the rich compared to the middle class someone got some preferential treatment via taxcuts/loopholes, etc.

 

[hypocritexposer]

Well I'm glad the rich weren't beneficiaries during the Bush era. What a relief!

The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, not just the rich. Did you want the middle class to receive preferential treatment?

Evidently, judging by the percentages of increases of wealth of the rich compared to the middle class someone got some preferential treatment via taxcuts/loopholes, etc.

wealth has nothing to do with income tax.


Let's say you and I both make $50,000 per year and are taxed at a rate of 22%.......

You spend your disposable income on beer and hookers and I invest mine in Gold.....

A recession hits and the new President spends so much money on a failed stimulus that inflation starts to creep.

Gold goes up to $1800, so I sell everything I purchased and put thhe proceeds in the bank ......

You have a hangover and a possible STD.


Who's wealthier at the end of the time period?

 

[TSR]

Wealth has nothing to do with income taxes??? Well I'll try to tell that to my accountant in April.

 

[Whitewing]

:lol:

 

[Tam]

Well I'm glad the rich weren't beneficiaries during the Bush era. What a relief!

The Bush tax cuts were for everyone, not just the rich. Did you want the middle class to receive preferential treatment?

Evidently, judging by the percentages of increases of wealth of the rich compared to the middle class someone got some preferential treatment via taxcuts/loopholes, etc.

The Dems had a filibuster proof Senate and a majority in the House so PLEASE enlighten us to why the Dems didn't abolish the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes. Come to think of it why did Obama in the lame duck session extend them? Come on you want to bash Bush for the tax cuts on the "RICH" so explain the Dems actions towards those same tax cuts for the "SAME" people. :?

 

[hypocritexposer]

Wealth has nothing to do with income taxes??? Well I'll try to tell that to my accountant in April.

what part of income versus wealth do you not understand?

INCOME VS. WEALTH

Income is the money that people receive from work, government benefits, or investments. Wealth, or net worth, refers to savings, real estate, retirement funds, stocks, bonds, and trust funds. The position of large amounts of wealth, not merely income, is what distinguishes rich people from the rest of the population.

Example: A wealthy person may have a net worth in the millions or billions of dollars, while the average American is in debt (or has a negative net worth). Income based on a large amount of wealth (investments) is generally more stable than income based on work, since a person may lose his or her job and be suddenly without any income.

http://www.mcousineau.net/so302/study%20guide/definitions/incvswealth.htm

 

[Lonecowboy]

Wealth has nothing to do with income taxes??? Well I'll try to tell that to my accountant in April.

whoooooooooooooooosh! duck that was a close one, it went right over your head!

 

[Steve]

in blaming the income gap on the lack of taxes, you would have to first see where the rich get the money to start with...


here is how it works.. Joe Schmuck works, he invest a portion of his wages in his retirement.., his company may match part of it, but it is usually 10% total..

that 10% gets invested in the stock market... it grows.. the economy dips.. it shrinks.. and grows again..

and occasionally the "RICH" decide it has been spooked, and they take their "profits" out .. (called profit taking)

but what happens to Joe schmuck's pension. .well it tanks at the same time, (the profit has to come from somewhere) :shock:

end result, Joe has to work a few more years and the rich get richer..

they didn't get richer because of a tax break they got richer because the government convinced Joe schmuck that investing in the market was wise and profitable.. and even set up plans to help him invest..

some one wins.. someone loses.. and when someone you don't know is managing your money often you end up losing ..

the rich know who is managing their money.. that's is how they got rich to start with..

 

[TSR]

Wealth has nothing to do with income taxes??? Well I'll try to tell that to my accountant in April.

whoooooooooooooooosh! duck that was a close one, it went right over your head!

Then you might want to answer this, A good friend of mine showed me his checkbook where he wrote a check to the IRS for $62,000 for 2010. Did he lose any wealth?? :???: