Reply to Snooker:

Dmounts wrote: I could go on and on and on about the achievements of President Obama, but

There's that 3 letter word but

No buts please: tell us about all of his achievements since becoming President.

CorvetteDan wrote:Shar, that is quite a list. I can also give a tax theory. Where does the top 1% get there money? From the 99 below them. Where does the next lower group before them get theirs? From the group below them. Where does the bottom group get theirs? By making stuff for the groups above them to make money off of. What does the low group do with the money they earned? They buy the stuff they made from the groups above them. Now if the less fortunate pay less tax they have more to spend. In the end the money still gets to the top. Tax the top. Since there is more money flowing up the rise in income will exceed the rise in tax. If I make another 10 mill but pay 4mill more in tax, I still gained 6 mill. That's the theory. Warren Buffet wants to pay more tax. Now ask yourself why. He's not giving away money.

RLMcB wrote:Sharon and Dan I really appreciate Y'all coming to the fray to defend all the principles I live by. Sharon, you have laid out the best case I have heard in defending our fine president. I also am proud to be a Jesus liberal including all his commandments of liberalism. Now, I want to state a couple facts, one of which I will prob'ly not live to see, the other I hope to. The first is: this fine country of ours is rapidly turning brown. One more generation and us white folks will be a minority. Its a fact Mr "Cracker" git over it. The second fact is Obama is and will be our next president. Anyone that doesn't believe that fact I have a very reputable website that allows anyone with money to bet against him. However, betting against him are not favorable odds. Some pretty smart money has decided the "Etch-a-sketch man is not going to win. Click on the link and look at each state to see what the electoral college will do. This is legal betting site in Ireland, very accurate in the past. Folks, the campaign is essentially over, the election will be held to confirm the result. BTW, better to click the link, otherwise you have to scroll way down to get the results. Anyway, the odds are 1/6 for Obama, and 4/1 against Romney ~~~~~~~~~~ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Thanks, RL. I, too, read that about the "minority" will soon become the "majority" and vice versa. It won't be long after the "changing of the guard" so to speak that we shall have a Latino President. Hmmm...I wonder if he, too, will produce an illegal birth certificate and lie about where he was born....LOL! That birther thingy will never go away!

RL and Dan...a question for you. Do you know of any "liberal" host, radio or TV, that's spews the hatred and fear that the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Coulter do, to name just a few? Schultz and Lawrence on MSNBC can get in some pretty darn good jabs once in awhile. But, really, not the rhetoric that seems to inspire the conservative hosts so named. I tried to listen to some of them, (on TV only) but, I couldn't get my head around their political philosophy. It is so opposite of what I believe in...not only as a progressive, liberal, Democrat, but mostly as a person...a human being, for gosh sakes! Just asking...

Sharon

<TABLE class=oddsTable width="100%"> <TR> <td class="col2 sel_88697152"></TD> <td class="odds border sel_88697152">[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]</TD></TR></TABLE>

Winning Candidate















Tuesday 6th November 2012, 23:00

Singles Only. Applies to the winning candidate of the US Presidential Election 2012. Others on Request [email=support@paddypower.com?][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/email]

Next President (Winning Candidate)

Hide

</TR></TABLE>

Applies to the winning candidate of the US Presidential election 2012. Others on request.

<TABLE class=oddsTable width="100%"> <TR> <td class="col2 sel_88697151">Barack Obama </TD> <td class="odds border sel_88697151"> 1/6 </TD> </TR> </TABLE>

<TABLE class=oddsTable width="100%"> <TR> <td class="col2 sel_88697152">Mitt Romney </TD> <td class="odds border sel_88697152"> 4/1 </TD></TR></TABLE>

Snooker28 wrote:

CorvetteDan wrote:Snooker, have you ever met Warren. He owns half the town I live in and the man is pretty cool. Btw, he also knows that if those on the low end pay less and spend more that it winds up on top. And never quote the Examiner and never never the Wiki encyclopedia. That would put you on the fools list and I am sure that you are way better than that.

Come on Dan, you can find articles on Buffet's IRS hypocrisy in any national news paper, including the very liberal leaning New York Times. It took me all of 5 seconds to find this one......

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As far as Warren being "Pretty Cool", I'm sure he is a very engaging, likeable man on the surface. He is also a very very rich Hypocrite! By the way he is busy buying up every News Paper he can, in order to get control over copy write infringements, so that he can have things scrubbed from internet sites. What a guy! Warren Buffet's influence was also a key factor in shutting down the construction of the Keystone pipeline. He stands to make an astronomical profit shipping oil by rail on the rail system he holds a major holding in, Santa Fe Burlington National, at a cost of $3 a barrel more than it would cost to pipe it, and at a higher risk to the ecology......again the ultimate in hypocracy. [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

Dmounts wrote:• He prevented a second Great Depression (As if that isn’t enough by itself! This is considered a fact to any economist of merit.)


But is it an accurate portrayal of what really happened?

IBD reviewed records of economic forecasts made just before Obama signed the stimulus bill into law, as well as economic data and monthly stimulus spending data from around that time, and reviews of the stimulus bill itself.

The conclusion is that in claiming to have staved off a Depression, the White House and its supporters seem to be engaging in a bit of historical revisionism.

Economists weren't predicting a Depression.

White House economists forecast in January 2009 that, even without a stimulus, unemployment would top out at just 8.8% — well below the 10.8% peak during the 1981-82 recession, and nowhere near Depression-era unemployment levels.

The same month, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that, absent any stimulus, the recession would end in "the second half of 2009." The recession officially ended in June 2009, suggesting that the stimulus did not have anything to do with it.

The data weren't showing it, either.

The argument is often made that the recession turned out to be far worse than anyone knew at the time. But various indicators show that the economy had pretty much hit bottom at the end of 2008 — a month before President Obama took office.

Monthly GDP, for example, stopped free-falling in December 2008, long before the stimulus kicked in, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. (See nearby chart.) Monthly job losses bottomed out in early 2009 while the Index of Leading Economic Indicators started to rise in April.

Obama himself admitted last week that the stimulus was too slow-acting, saying at his Jobs and Competitiveness Council that "shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected."

Also often overlooked is that a tremendous amount of stimulus already was in the economy when Obama took office, including President Bush's $150 billion stimulus, two unemployment benefit extensions and $250 billion spent on "automatic stabilizers."

More importantly, the Bush administration pushed through the controversial $700 billion TARP program (which Obama sustained), while the Fed pursued an aggressive anti-recession campaign by, among other things, effectively lowering its target interest rate to zero.

Princeton economist Alan Blinder and Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi studied the relative contribution of Obama's $830 billion stimulus compared with TARP and the Fed's "financial-market policies."

While the economists credit Obama's stimulus for helping end the recession when it did and keeping unemployment lower than it would have been, they concluded that TARP and the Fed's actions were "substantially more effective" at saving the economy from ruin.

Snooker28 wrote:

RLMcB wrote:Whining about the Keystone pipeline is a crock. Have any of you republican considered the proposed route? If you have, certainly you've noticed, it is entirely within "Red" states only. If they really wanted it built, each state could build a segment. Another route would be to avoid the RR by piping it to the upper Missouri River and barge it south to the refineries in Louisiana. Even piping it to Lake Superior and barge it down through Chicago and the Illinois river to the Mississippi and then to Louisiana.

Rediculous, it's already adding $3 a barrel to rail it, and there isn't enough existing rail capacity to handle the volume. The EPA would never allow the shipment down any river and that would probably add another $6 a barrel. If Mitt gets in, the pipeline will be built and there will be a whole lot of democrats cheering it.



None of that is the real problem however, it is the lack of willingness to compromise between the two political factions. It's still, "We are not going to compromise with that Nigger in the Whitehouse."

Is your head in the sand? This is an international pipeline so it had to approved by House, the Senate and the President. Now pay attention here RLmcB you might actually learn something. This is one of the few times both the house and senate agreed and passed a bypartisan resolution that would actually help everyone in this country and create an estimated 20.000 jobs. Hello !!!! The house and Senate voted and passed it! Obama stamped "VETO" on it. He would rather send our money to his Saudie buddies. Muslim thing .... get the drift?