Know your Candidate, Barack Obama [W:131]

randel said:

no thanks, i know enough about romney that i know i don't want him anywhere near the whitehouse...looking forward to the President being re-elected...

Click to expand...

You lefties never cease to amaze me....You have been drinking the Hussein Obama koolaid for so long that nothing will change your mind about the worse president this country has ever had..........I wonder if you even watched the video you so brainwashed..........

Navy Pride said:

You lefties never cease to amaze me....You have been drinking the Hussein Obama koolaid for so long that nothing will change your mind about the worse president this country has ever had..........I wonder if you even watched the video you so brainwashed..........

Click to expand...

navy my friend, you, of all people , should never call someone brainwashed...just sayin'..

Know your Candidate, Barack Obama

randel said:

kasich has nothing to do with it....the saving of the auto industry( and obama idea i believe) is responsible for it...kasich would like to claim credit, but can't.

Click to expand...

Kind of like Obomba would not like to receive credit for the U.S.'s poor economy, but it's unavoidable, it's his fault.

randel said:

conservative economic policy my ass.....the leadership of President Barack Obama is spurring the turnaround.

Click to expand...

Your opinion and partisanship noted. I can see the 23 million Americans unemployed and under employed cheering the Obama economic policies as well as all the taxpayers still on the hook for over 25 BILLION DOLLARS from the GM/Chrysler bailout. If only you would get your nose out of your union stewards ass long enough to see what is going on in the country you might be better informed

Another important thing the common citizens need to know about Obama is that his class warfare rhetoric about "shared prosperity" is predicated on lies about taxes, and the rich.

Obama's claim is that "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer". That's 100% false. CSpan had a forum this past week hosted by the Cato institute that everyone should go online and watch. From the period of 1980 to 2009, the net worth of the top 1% has declined, while the net worth of the middle class has risen over 30%. Experts also showed that as the rich get richer, so does everyone else.

They also proved that if you raise the federal income tax on the rich, the rich simply move their capital and assets into vehicles that yield capital gains revenue. That's why Romney receives his income largely through capital gains. It's a lower tax rate than the federal income tax rate. And if the government raises the capital gains rate, like Dems want to do, the rich simply move their assets and capital again to realize their incomes another way, which is taxed a different way.

The same experts proved that wealth and prosperity grows as tax rates decline. So the question becomes, would you rather tax $1 Billion at a 15% rate, or $500 million at a 28% rate? Do the math. And this is precisely what has happened since the early 20th century.

When the government taxed capital gains at 34%, capital aims constituted leas than 1% of GDP. WHEN Bush cut the capital gains rate down to 15%, capital gains constituted 5.4% of GDP. What's that tell us? Americans will shift their capital and assets to the vehicle which taxes them the least. So raising the taxes on the top 1% will actually HURT the middle class over the long term as the rich start moving their capital an assets away from hiring and expansion, over to areas like dividends, tax sheltered bonds, IRAs, an capital gains investing. That's what we are seeing right now. As Obama targets te rich, the rich look for safer havens for their money.

Go look at the graphs. A three year snap shot during a recession doesn't constitute a trend. The trend over the last 30 years is the rich are paying a higher percentage of the tax bill. In the 1990s, the Bottom 48% of revenue earners paid close to 18% of the tax bill. Today, 48% of people in America pay NO federal income tax. The rich have picked up the slack. And over that same time period, have seen their wealth decrease, while the middle class wealth has risen by more than 30%.

Raising taxes on the rich is nothing more than a populist idea. It hasn't worked, and it won't work now. In the 70s, the top marginal rate was over 70%. Ironically, the 70s were some of our worst years economically. Poverty rates rose in the 70s. Welfare increased. Interest rates were high. Inflation was high. Unemployment was high. Why? Because the rich took their capital and assets and sat on them, or shifted them so that they could realize their income through vehicles other than earned income.

Obama is just lying. Raising taxes on the rich will HURT the middle class because the revenues are not directly dispersed to the middle class. They are redistributed via welfare, unemployment, food stamps, and other programs. Welfare does not elevate anyone. Nor does unemployment. Nor does any government program. It actually delays them from gainful employment, which is the only means in which a person can better themselves economically.

A vote for Obama is a vote against the middle class. That's just a fact.

Conservative said:

Your opinion and partisanship noted. I can see the 23 million Americans unemployed and under employed cheering the Obama economic policies as well as all the taxpayers still on the hook for over 25 BILLION DOLLARS from the GM/Chrysler bailout. If only you would get your nose out of your union stewards ass long enough to see what is going on in the country you might be better informed

Click to expand...

and if you would pull your head out of your own ass, you might be better informed...shall we go on?

Conservative said:

Wonder how many Obama supporters have the guts to watch this all the way through. These supporters ignore the Obama record so lets see if they will ignore the Obama history.
Why would anyone vote to re-elect Obama unless they were the same as Obama?

Click to expand...

Why anyone would believe the "history" presented, let alone post it to support an anti-Obama argument?

Because they do not care one whit about truth.


"We continue to receive queries about claims and theories advanced by "birthers," who wish to believe that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the USA or that he somehow gave up his citizenship and thus is not qualified to hold the office he occupies. One is a claim, first advanced last year, that his trip to Pakistan in 1981 proves he must not have been a U.S. citizen because Americans were not permitted to travel there at the time.

This one is not quite as transparent as the April Fools’ Day hoax that took in many of these deniers of Obama’s birthplace bona fides. That one was a fabricated Associated Press story about Obama’s student records from Occidental College. But the Pakistan theory is just as false. The truth, easily proven, is that American citizens traveled freely to Pakistan in 1981.

Obama did go to Pakistan that year when he was 20 years old with a college friend, after first seeing his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. That much is true. When he mentioned the 1981 trip during a campaign appearance last year, it came as news, because he had not previously written of it in his books.

Some then speculated, or claimed outright, that Obama must have gotten into Pakistan using an Indonesian passport obtained while his mother was married to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian man whom she had divorced the previous year. Under this theory, the young Obama had somehow become an Indonesian citizen. "Birthers" claimed that the Pakistan trip constituted indirect proof of Obama’s supposed Indonesian citizenship. Philadelphia lawyer Phil Berg even told the U.S. Supreme Court last year, before it refused to hear his case challenging Obama’s qualification to be president, that Pakistan "was on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. Citizens."

But that claim is quite false. There was no such ban. Americans traveled there without incident, as shown by a travel piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1981, dated June 14. Barbara Crossette, an assistant news editor of the Times, told her mostly American readers they could travel to Lahore, Pakistan, by air, rail or road, adding: "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports."

Her article prompted a letter to the Times from the U.S. consul general in Lahore saying he would "welcome an influx of Americans" to Lahore. He cautioned only that in addition to getting a visa for Pakistan, American visitors also should be careful to line up an Indian visa for the return trip if they planned to travel overland. The letter is dated Aug. 23, 1981.

Also, a travel advisory from the State Department dated Aug. 17, 1981 notes that Americans traveling to Pakistan require a 30-day visa, and that any staying longer must check in with Pakistan’s Foreigner Registration Office. A digital copy of the advisory is archived at the Electronic Research Collection, a partnership between the State Department and the Federal Depository Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

FactCheck.org : More “Birther” Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip

randel said:

and if you would pull your head out of your own ass, you might be better informed...shall we go on?

Click to expand...

We sure can but you will just divert, I love talking about that economy" steaming along" with 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans and 1.5% GDP growth as an example or we could talk about your lie of it being a precedence for 10 years of tax returns for a Presidential candidate or better yet let's talk about Romney not paying any taxes for 10 years so we can further divert from the booming Obama economy

Gimmesometruth said:

Why anyone would believe the "history" presented, let alone post it to support an anti-Obama argument?

Because they do not care one whit about truth.


"We continue to receive queries about claims and theories advanced by "birthers," who wish to believe that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the USA or that he somehow gave up his citizenship and thus is not qualified to hold the office he occupies. One is a claim, first advanced last year, that his trip to Pakistan in 1981 proves he must not have been a U.S. citizen because Americans were not permitted to travel there at the time.

This one is not quite as transparent as the April Fools’ Day hoax that took in many of these deniers of Obama’s birthplace bona fides. That one was a fabricated Associated Press story about Obama’s student records from Occidental College. But the Pakistan theory is just as false. The truth, easily proven, is that American citizens traveled freely to Pakistan in 1981.

Obama did go to Pakistan that year when he was 20 years old with a college friend, after first seeing his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. That much is true. When he mentioned the 1981 trip during a campaign appearance last year, it came as news, because he had not previously written of it in his books.

Some then speculated, or claimed outright, that Obama must have gotten into Pakistan using an Indonesian passport obtained while his mother was married to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian man whom she had divorced the previous year. Under this theory, the young Obama had somehow become an Indonesian citizen. "Birthers" claimed that the Pakistan trip constituted indirect proof of Obama’s supposed Indonesian citizenship. Philadelphia lawyer Phil Berg even told the U.S. Supreme Court last year, before it refused to hear his case challenging Obama’s qualification to be president, that Pakistan "was on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. Citizens."

But that claim is quite false. There was no such ban. Americans traveled there without incident, as shown by a travel piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1981, dated June 14. Barbara Crossette, an assistant news editor of the Times, told her mostly American readers they could travel to Lahore, Pakistan, by air, rail or road, adding: "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports."

Her article prompted a letter to the Times from the U.S. consul general in Lahore saying he would "welcome an influx of Americans" to Lahore. He cautioned only that in addition to getting a visa for Pakistan, American visitors also should be careful to line up an Indian visa for the return trip if they planned to travel overland. The letter is dated Aug. 23, 1981.

Also, a travel advisory from the State Department dated Aug. 17, 1981 notes that Americans traveling to Pakistan require a 30-day visa, and that any staying longer must check in with Pakistan’s Foreigner Registration Office. A digital copy of the advisory is archived at the Electronic Research Collection, a partnership between the State Department and the Federal Depository Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

FactCheck.org : More “Birther” Nonsense: Obama’s 1981 Pakistan Trip

Click to expand...

So Obama went to Pakistan, thanks for supporting that.Wonder where the money came from?

Conservative said:

We sure can but you will just divert, I love talking about that economy" steaming along" with 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans and 1.5% GDP growth as an example or we could talk about your lie of it being a precedence for 10 years of tax returns for a Presidential candidate or better yet let's talk about Romney not paying any taxes for 10 years so we can further divert from the booming Obama economy

Click to expand...

yes, the economy is improving, we agree on this...back to romney.....what is he afraid of con? you must be getting real nervous with all the anti-obama threads you have been starting...worried your boy romney doesnt have what it takes to be elected?

Conservative said:

So Obama went to Pakistan, thanks for supporting that.Wonder where the money came from?

Click to expand...

LOL

Obama ate a cheeseburger ... wonder where THAT money came from, hmmmmmm? :lamo

randel said:

yes, the economy is improving, we agree on this...back to romney.....what is he afraid of con? you must be getting real nervous with all the anti-obama threads you have been starting...worried your boy romney doesnt have what it takes to be elected?

Click to expand...

I guess having a GDP growth declining for three years in a row, 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans and a 16 trillion dollar debt up 5.4 trillion in less than four years is an improving economy to a liberal? It really is hard to take you seriously when you believe those numbers are an improvement. Nothing is going to change your mind about Romney but you better get used to calling him Mr. President. Seems all it takes for your vote is a smile, a personality, and good singing voice since results don't matter. Let me know when the economy and economic results become Obama's responsibility?

AdamT said:

LOL

Obama ate a cheeseburger ... wonder where THAT money came from, hmmmmmm? :lamo

Click to expand...

Now if you said he ate a pork sandwich then that would be real news

Conservative said:

Now if you said he ate a pork sandwich then that would be real news

Click to expand...

You mean because he's a secret Muslim? That's a fitting response in this conspiracy hack thread.

Conservative said:

I guess having a GDP growth declining for three years in a row, 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans and a 16 trillion dollar debt up 5.4 trillion in less than four years is an improving economy to a liberal? It really is hard to take you seriously when you believe those numbers are an improvement. Nothing is going to change your mind about Romney but you better get used to calling him Mr. President. Seems all it takes for your vote is a smile, a personality, and good singing voice since results don't matter. Let me know when the economy and economic results become Obama's responsibility?

Click to expand...

why would i get used to something that isnt going to happen?

Masada said:

Another important thing the common citizens need to know about Obama is that his class warfare rhetoric about "shared prosperity" is predicated on lies about taxes, and the rich.

Obama's claim is that "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer". That's 100% false. CSpan had a forum this past week hosted by the Cato institute that everyone should go online and watch. From the period of 1980 to 2009, the net worth of the top 1% has declined, while the net worth of the middle class has risen over 30%. Experts also showed that as the rich get richer, so does everyone else.

Click to expand...

You are incorrect, the top 1% have increased their wealth since 2007, the declines occurred during the recession, but have been increasing since 1980, and continue post recession.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[8] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Not only has the top 1% increased their wealth share since 1980, so has the top quintile to a greater degree:


Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Conservative said:

I guess having a GDP growth declining for three years in a row,

Click to expand...

What's better, in your opinion? GDP growth of MINUS 7%, which he inherited from Bush, or GDP growth of POSITIVE 1.5%, which we had last quarter?

Conservative said:

So Obama went to Pakistan, thanks for supporting that.Wonder where the money came from?

Click to expand...

Probably from his dad, travel within Asia at that time was cheap.

Any other birther/teabag nonsense you want to post? It continues to enhance your standing.

AdamT said:

What's better, in your opinion? GDP growth of MINUS 7%, which he inherited from Bush, or GDP growth of POSITIVE 1.5%, which we had last quarter?

Click to expand...

If not mistaken Bush had GDP Growth of 4.5 trillion dollars in his 8 years in office, seems you want to claim the Bush results are one year. Not surprising coming from someone who won't answer the question as to when the economy and economic results become Obama's responsibility.

Gimmesometruth said:

Probably from his dad, travel within Asia at that time was cheap.

Any other birther/teabag nonsense you want to post? It continues to enhance your standing.

Click to expand...

I already know my standing with the liberals in this group and couldn't care less. I will continue to confuse you with facts, logic, and common sense which you will counter with your own personal opinion. Some day my hope is to be half is smart as you and others here think they are. Amazing how I survived 35 years in the business world and generated what appears to be successful results for my family.

Conservative said:

I already know my standing with the liberals in this group and couldn't care less. I will continue to confuse you with facts, logic, and common sense which you will counter with your own personal opinion. Some day my hope is to be half is smart as you and others here think they are. Amazing how I survived 35 years in the business world and generated what appears to be successful results for my family.

Click to expand...

If you are less than half as smart now.....how much is that...exactly?

Again, you always go non-sequitur when I smack you between the eyes, it is a tell tale....don't go near a poker table.

randel said:

yes, the economy is improving, we agree on this...back to romney.....what is he afraid of con? you must be getting real nervous with all the anti-obama threads you have been starting...worried your boy romney doesnt have what it takes to be elected?

Click to expand...

The economy is improving? Lol, boy, you must not be listening and paying attention.

The economy is slowing dramatically. But Obama is out of wiggle room. We don't have another $747 Billion for stimulus. Interest rates are already as low as they can go. We are out of room. Unemployment WENT UP last month. GDP growth is below 2%. And more people are retiring than are entering the work force. And people ant fall back on equity in their homes because housing is worse now than it was in 09.

Unless we control our spending, the government will continue to print, borrow, and spend, virtually ENSURING future double digit inflation. So, when Ryan and Romney say Obama is making things worse, they are absolutely right.

You seem to support Obama out of a passion, or emotion. There's no way a smart person can support him using statistical economic analysis. To people like you, "spending" is like a monopoly game term, and not a real economic issue. People line you don't understand how inflation is a big deal. People like you clamor for more spending, more taxes, and more redistribution.

Logic tells you this: welfare actually hurts the poor in the long run. Taxing the rich more doesn't give the poor more opportunity, it gives them more welfare. So you are punishing creators through higher taxes, in order to fund programs that discourage people from working harder. This is quintessential liberalism. It creates more poverty.

You can't have this debate with me, because you argue emotionally instead of logically. You want me to bury you alive with 100 years of statistics? You wanna debate the marginal tax rates in correlation with income inequality? You wann talk about the boom in entitlement spending over the past 60 years but the fact that poverty rates have risen? You wanna debate the graphs from the CBO that show as taxes increase, wealth and prosperity decreases? Or do you wanna talk about Paul Ryan's abs, and Romney's tax return?

I can prove, with stats, that the liberal ideology of entitlement spending actually and literally renders the middle and working classes WORSE OFF! Is that the "hope and change" you had in mind?

Conservative said:

If not mistaken Bush had GDP Growth of 4.5 trillion dollars in his 8 years in office, seems you want to claim the Bush results are one year. Not surprising coming from someone who won't answer the question as to when the economy and economic results become Obama's responsibility.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Obama didn't have the luxury of managing the pre-crash economy that Bush inherited from Clinton. He had to deal with the flaming wreckage that Bush left him.

pbrauer said:

We have one candidate who willing to open his tax returns to the public and one who is shy about it, I am voting for the open one.

Click to expand...

Yes... and you're voting solely because of tax records... Not because youre a stooge for the Democratic Party, and have attached themselves to records as they key issue of the 2012 campaign...

The rest of us will be voting against Obama solely based off his awful record, the $16T debt, the $1.2T current and average deficit over his term in office, the rising 8.3% unemployment rate along with the steep unprecident 2% drop in the workforce participation rate, and the fuel prices that are through the roof with gasoline costing upwards of $3.50/gal in most areas of the country...

You can "cling to your taxes and religion", and other meaningless issues though...

Gimmesometruth said:

You are incorrect, the top 1% have increased their wealth since 2007, the declines occurred during the recession, but have been increasing since 1980, and continue post recession.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[8] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Not only has the top 1% increased their wealth share since 1980, so has the top quintile to a greater degree:
View attachment 67132702

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Click to expand...

I said it before and I'll say it again. You can't take a 2 year snap shot and call it a trend. You speak as though wealth is finite, and that if the top earners increase their wealth, than wealth is decreased for others. This is patently false. From 1980 to 2009, the total wealth, NOT A PERCENTAGE OF WEALTH OWNED, decreased among the top 1%. While the total wealth of the middle class increased by over 30%.

So what's all this BS about? Statistics PROVE that as the rich get richer, so does everyone else. It's literally provable. Obama is nothing more than a wealth baiting liar. He's Karl Marx. He tries to convince the weak minded that the rich get richer AT THE EXPENSE of the poor, and that's 100% a lie. Over the last 30 years, 30 years of increasingly lower, yet more progressive tax rates, Middle Class Americans have seen their wealth increase by more than 30%, while the top 1% have seen a slight decrease.

You cannot refute these statistics. Stats do not lie. Stats are not partisan. Stats are what they are.