So why are you telling ME?
So I get this email from the Obama 2012 campaign telling me about a tax deduction that corporations get for outsourcing jobs overseas.
Jonn —
Here’s something that President Obama laid out in his State of the Union that I think deserves special attention:
Under current law, American companies can actually get a tax deduction for outsourcing jobs.
That’s the opposite of how it should work. President Obama is proposing to end tax deductions for outsourcing, create a new tax credit for bringing jobs home, and lower tax rates for companies that manufacture and create jobs in the United States.
If you think this should be a priority during this campaign, it’s up to you to speak out. Support the President and spread the word:
This could be a defining issue of 2012.
So why the f^ck are you telling me about it, douche nozzle? First of all, I don’t even know if there is such a thing, but assuming that there is, hasn’t Obama been president for more than three years already? Why hasn’t he done something about it? My guess is that if he had actually fixed it, he’d be short one more bloody shirt to wave at Democrat voters to get them to send him money so he can get four more years to make shit up about what he can’t do because of Bush.
One of our prospective opponents built his career in part on outsourcing jobs in the private sector — and then continued outsourcing jobs as a governor. Is that the kind of economic experience and mindset people want in a President?
Again, f^ckstick, if the president had fixed this like he said he was going to fix in the 2008 campaign, your “prospective opponent” wouldn’t have been able to outsource jobs. So who is really at fault here?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
He’s a dumbshit. You’re exactly right, too. He had 4 years to do something about it, but instead spent that time suing states and going to rallys for the rights of baby sea lions and trying on wedding dresses. Oh, wait… at least one of those is true. Like you said, he just wants another thing to “fight for” so you’ll vote for him.
The tax deduction garbage has been de-bunked. There is no “tax deduction.” There are tax advantages to companies for out-sourcing, but the companies don’t get to claim any special write-off or anything.
Seeing as how the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (a hair under 40%) that might have something to do with it also. Don’t tell that to a liberal though.
This whole issue of tax credits for moving jobs overseas is false. It goes back to how high the corporate tax rate is here that drives companies overseas so they don’t have to pay those corporate taxes. If the corporate taxes would be lower more companies would be willing to have their operations in the US.
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=598977&ibdbot=1&p=2
Oh, I guess President Obama was too busy saving the American automobile industry, finding and killing Bin Laden, fighting two wars that Bush started, preventing the Great Recession into turning into a Great Depression, getting unemployment down to 8.6%, changing the hemorraging of jobs by hundreds of thousands in Bush’s last year and a half which continued in the beginning of Obama’s term to 19 months of job growth, trying to prevent the banks and Wall Street from ruining our economy again, just to name a few off the top of my head. I think he’s been a little busy fixing everything else. This is one of the next things to fix. And gee, I wonder why the President before him didn’t do anything in his EIGHT years of office – because George W Bush was totally for shipping American jobs overseas if it meant cheaper products. “George W. Bush actively supported tax breaks that rewarded companies more for shipping jobs overseas than for creating them here in the United States, and he strongly opposed efforts to reform these tax rules. These tax breaks cost the U.S. Treasury $7 billion each year and made it significantly cheaper for American companies to operate overseas than in this country. The tax code subsidized job destruction and put domestic producers and workers at a profound disadvantage. The Bush administration refused to support efforts to eliminate these tax giveaways, and, in its 2004 and 2005 budgets, proposed creating even more tax incentives for U.S. companies to ship work overseas rather than keep good jobs in America. The Bush administration mounted a relentless campaign against Buy American laws, which ensure federal tax dollars are invested in creating U.S. jobs and maintaining a strong industrial base. The Bush administration routinely waived Buy American laws and sought changes to weaken them. The Bush administration even threatened to veto the Defense Authorization AFL-CIO 5 bill unless provisions to strengthen Buy American laws were removed. Bush’s opposition to Buy American laws is so strong he has even confronted members of his own party, led by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.),… Read more »
If you’re going to engage in cut and paste plagiarism, at least have the decency to check your formatting…..
And there it is “George Bush, blah blah blah.”
Too long, didn’t read after that. Face it Mel, your boy is the worst thing that’s ever happened to this country, after Jimmy Carter that is. And since Obama found and killed Bin Laden, accordng to you, would you be so kind as to provide BHO’s BUD/S class number? K thanks. 😛
“…getting unemployment down to 8.6%…”
Yeah, it was 7% when Bush left office, so that’s a real funny direction for “down”.
Redacted, yeah, and maybe he can also provide Panetta’s BUD/S class number, after all, the other SEAL in the House chamber the other night told Panetta “Good job”. I was wondering, does anyone know whether Panetta was boots on the ground, or did he pilot one of the helicopters?
Oh, and Mel? 19 months of job growth? Would that be at Solyndra and Ener 1, the battery boondoggle? Or is that in the export of arms to Mexico?
@5
“These tax breaks cost the U.S. Treasury $7 billion each year”
Most telling sentence in your whole post, IMO.
If a tax break “costs” the Treasury, then that means that all income is the rightful property of the government. I reject that philosophy.
Besides, what’s $7 billion dollars a year when you’re talking about Obama’s spending?
So does all this mean we won’t have to buy anymore of those little curly Q light bulbs made in China? How hard will der Fuhrer Obama’s buddy, the head of GE cry? You know, the guy who bought all those Chevy Volts and shipped them to China, ’cause we Americans won’t buy the pieces of shit.
What is missing from Mel’s AFLCIO-spam is the acknowledgement that Progressives under then-Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid controlled the nation’s purse-strings from January of 2007 until today.
My reading of our Constitution lends the idea that the POTUS, the 2d branch of our Government, spends the money as directed by the Congress, which is the 1st branch of our Government.
So to say the economy and the spending is Bush’s fault is to say Bush-43 is guilty of following the Constitution. That he followed the law.
None of Bush’s budgets were as large as what was passed by the House and Senate. Ever. Yes, both parties participated in the pork-orgy. The Republican have removed most of their more egregious porkers, then Progressives have not.
Then there’s this little matter of getting out of a recession. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton – these things happen every 5-8 years. IIRC, one never heard Bush or his staff whining ‘it’s Clinton’s fault!’ No, they approached the problem maturely and carefully stewarded the Republican Congress’s spending plan and brought our great Nation out of a recession.
Straight into a for-real shooting war. These things happen. And we all heard and read and knew that Clinton dropped the ball on Bin Laden and terrorism repeatedly, but again the issue was addressed maturely, with every concession given to the peace-at-any-cost wing of Congress.
Side rant: I can’t speak to other’s experience, but many of the soldiers I served with mentioned at one time or another that their parents had been hippies and peaceniks. Today’s children know more than their parents think they do, which is why the education system is now about indoctrination. In 20 years, those kids will be in uniform upholding our values, not their parents’.
That’s a fairly incredible amound of bullshit you managed to put into just 7 paragraphs, DaveO. Most impressive. Is it opposite day in your part of the country? DaveO Fantasy: “My reading of our Constitution lends the idea that the POTUS, the 2d branch of our Government, spends the money as directed by the Congress, which is the 1st branch of our Government.” Apparently DaveO stopped reading when it got to the part about the President’s veto powers. See my reading of reality is that it was Bush, accompanied by a Republican Congress That Pushed through the two bush tax cuts, an unpaid for medicare part D, two unpaid for wars (one of which was unnecessary and the other of which was bungled badly) DaveO Fantasy: None of Bush’s budgets were as large as what was passed by the House and Senate. Ever. Yes, both parties participated in the pork-orgy. The Republican have removed most of their more egregious porkers, then Progressives have not.” Reality: Yeah, I’m sure Don Corleone’s Ginko Olive Oil always managed to balance his books too. Bush’s budgets were smaller than they should of been because he kept thinks like the war off of it, preferring to pay for those in emergency supplementals. DaveO Fantasy: Then there’s this little matter of getting out of a recession. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton – these things happen every 5-8 years. IIRC, one never heard Bush or his staff whining ‘it’s Clinton’s fault!’ No, they approached the problem maturely and carefully stewarded the Republican Congress’s spending plan and brought our great Nation out of a recession. Reality: Mmmm, no, these things don’t “happen” every 5 to 8 years. Bush inherited a very slight economic downturn brought upon by the internet bubble bursting. The standard definition of a recession- two straight quarters of economic decline- was never met, neither at the end of Clinton’s last term nor at the beginning of Bush’s first. If anything Bush inherited a downturn, not a recession. It was a relatively easy “storm” to weather which a competent President could of done easily. President… Read more »
“Clinton handed over to Bush plans on how to get Bin laden along with plans on going into Afghanistan.”
Care to expand on this nugget?
accompanied by a Republican Congress
IIRC, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate during the first two years of Bush’s first term.
After that, most of your points are regurgitated DNC bullshit.
Care to expand on this nugget?
Richard Clarke, the former head of the anti-terrorism task force already expanded on it nicely, as did Sandy Berger, Bush himself admits to receiving a memo entitle “Osama Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States one month before 911 and ignoring it.
“IIRC, the Democrats had the majority in the Senate during the first two years of Bush’s first term.”
While that’s true, the fillibuster was a rarely used thing back then and the Democrats had a ONE vote majority. He was able to push through his tax cuts, with the help of Ben Nelson, using reconciliation. And of course War spending was, before bush, something almost everyone deferred to the President on.
As far as the DNC bullshit, line. The truth has a liberal bias.
No, scooter. The MEDIA has a liberal bias. The truth has NO bias.
And seriously? Sandy Burglar? Credibility, meet shitter.
Again insipid proves himself to be a tool of the Republicans.
Prove your points shitbag. Show us where the Constitution says the POTUS does not have to follow the law. Show me.
You’ve never even heard of Senator James Jeffords, have you?
insipid, as a GOP tool, you don’t even understand why blaming Bush is anathematic to military men and women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
the most cogent argument at how utterly Obama has failed. Insipid, I’m sorry dude but if you run the numbers your side eats pavement every time.
I love right-wing “logic”. Of course what that idiotic piece of shit propoganda video doesn’t tell you is that spending cuts won’t “solve” the problem either. But just because the rich can’t “solve” the problem doesn’t mean they shouldn’t contribute to the solution. The fact is that you can’t justify a billionaire paying 14% in taxes and a construction worker paying 35%. Here’s a better video:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-has-had-it-how-fox-talks-about-class-warfare/41474/
The problem is that the bottom 50% don’t have the money to make it up. We’re going to HAVE to tax the wealthy unless if you want to gut your precious military or throw grandma off of SS. From the link:
But the idea of raising tax rates on the top 2 percent of earners was decried as socialism and class warfare on Fox News for, among other things, according to numbers Stewart quoted, raising a mere $700 billion in revenue over the next ten years. The Daily Show host then pointed to this chart that Business Insider posted showing that the bottom 50 percent of the country only controls 2.5 percent of U.S. wealth. Stewart quipped: “So raising the income tax rate on the top 2 percent of earners would raise $700 billion dollars, but taking half of everything the bottom 50 percent have in this country would do the same. I see the problem here: we need to take all of what the bottom 50 percent have.”
It’s your side that is “eating pavement” the numbers do not add up without the wealthy upping their contributions.
DaveO, you don’t speak for everyone who has worn the uniform. I did, and i have no problem at all blaming Bush. And yes, i have heard of James Jeffords, again, back then filibusters were rarely used (especially after 911), secondly he managed to get his tax cuts through with reconciliation, hence the 10 year time limit.
I’m not sure what his necessity of following the law has to do with the price of tea in china. Are you saying that Bush had nothing to do with the tax cuts? That he was some kind of innocent bystander or something? Are you saying that he had nothing to do with the trumped up Iraq war? That he didn’t push for Medicare Part D? Those four things I just listed were BY FAR our biggest budget busters. This graph lays it all out:
http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac143/ThisIsMyTime_2010/BushDeficitsVsObama.jpg
Barack Obama did not cause the problem, bush did. I don’t care if you’re in the military or not. If you don’t know the past you’re condemned to repeat it. Voting GOP is a disaster.
Al Franken – Operation Ignore Here’s the real story of how the Clinton administration was focused on terrorism and the Bush administration dropped the ball. Don’t trust Franken? By all means, check the sources he cites here! Excerpt from: Al Franken’s book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them Chapter Operation Ignore Bill Clinton’s far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office.” Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake – perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation’s security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” Which brings me to a lie. When Time asked about the conversation, Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present” Perhaps so, Dr. Rice. But might I direct our mutual friends, my readers, to a certain December 30, 2001, New York Times article? Perhaps you know the one, Condi? Shall I quote it? “As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism-and particularly Mr. bin Laden’s brand of it-would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.” (Italics mine.) When I read this, my instinct was to shout for joy and dance… Read more »
Insipid- entitlements will have to be cut. The problem cannot be solved by simply “taxing the rich”, we’re spending way beyond our means. Of course, “fair share” gets thrown around alot by whinging crybabies like you, but how fair is it that 48% of this country’s citizens pay no federal taxes at all, yet still recieve money back on “tax returns”?
Constitutionally, the federal government is supposed to provide for national defense. It IS NOT supposed to provide bullshit safety nets, healthcare, or retirement programs for it’s citizens.
As for your Franken bullshit… no. What was Bush going to do? Shut down all immigration to the US, shut down all domestic and international flights, shut down shipping, or lock down the highways because there was a report that Al-Qaida was going to attack, somewhere, sometime soon? Perhaps you and your pal Franken should try that FBI agent who ignored agent Williams’ report for dereliction of duty? Naw, just blame Bush. He should have known something was amiss in a different state with his spider sense.
Also, your links are giving 404’s here.
Insipid a few things. 1). Yeah actually spending cuts in entitlements would pretty much solve everything. But if we took all the Wealth away from the Wealthy. Guess what, wouldn’t fix the problem. The numbers, sadly don’t like. To quote a great man “you could say the spend like drunken sailors but that’s not fair to Sailors, they spend their own money” 2). I think Its rich Franken calling anyone a liar. 3). On the face of it, Clinton’s own inter-service walls prevented an FBI agent embedded with the NSA from warning his own branch, of terrorists trying to get into the US. Worse CIA watch lists weren’t made available to customs, because of those same rules. We may never know what other balls Clinton dropped (i could mention that he could have killed Osama almost two decades before he was killed but really why split hairs). But as for Bush dropping the ball. . . Gee he was president for a grand total of about 8 months and change, the only memo he got on the subject (yes the famous “bin Laden plans to attack the US” memo) would have had him deploy dogs to national parks and monuments looking for truck bombs, and drive bys. No one anywhere really thought they’d try the novel (and lethal) idea of turning Passenger Airliners into modern day Bacca Bombs. It seems Clinton was more interested in fighting Rudy Giuliani, and making sure kids had after school programs then actually fighting, or defending this country from terrorism. I would also cite OBL himself that he first conceived of this attack, or more specifically an attack on America itself when he saw Clinton’s reaction to Gothic Serpent. He folded to Al Shibab. No way around that. then the ’93 bombing, then the Embassies in Kenya and Nairobi. Then the Cole, and he didn’t do a God Damned thing. He wanted to take the “law enforcement approach”. That’s fine with a guy robing a bank. These were military strikes against soft targets and Clinton was too busy putting cigars up his interns vagina (while… Read more »
I love the conservative excuse machine:
1. If the economy is bad and it’s a Democrat we ONLY blame the current occupant and pretend that the Republican predecessor didn’t hand him over a steaming pile of fecal matter of an economy.
2. If a banking crises happens under a Republican’s watch we blame legislation passed during the CARTER administration! Not the deregulation passed under the Republicans
3. If the economy is good under Democrats it’s because of something a Republican did 8 years earlier and it has nothing to do with the Democrats.
4. If an attack happens on a Democrats watch it’s always his fault entirely, even if he’s only been President a month, as was the case with Bill Clinton and the first WTC attack.
5. If an attack happens under a Republican’s watch it’s entirely the last Democratic administrations fault, even if they’d been President for nearly 9 months
Of course the facts of the matter is that using just about any rubrik except perhaps taxes the economy ALWAYS does better under Democrats. Already, Obama’s job creation record beats Bush’s job creation record. Already Obama is showing more fiscal responsiblity then Bush ever has. And it is quite obvious that Obama and Clinton’s derided “law enforcement” policy is working ten times better at stopping terrorism then Bush’s idiotic “War” on terror ever has.
As far as the alleged vandalism of the White House, that’s a lie:
http://www.salon.com/2001/05/23/vandals/
So is the story of the Sudanese supposedly ready to hand over Bin Laden:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A63896-2002Jul12¬Found=true
What’s NOT a lie is Al Franken’s Operation Ignore.
So please, Doc Bailey, start accepting personal responsibility for what the Republicans have done. Stop with the thoroughly debunked lies. If the “shit don’t fly here” it’s because you’re stuck on stupid. Not because anything i write is innacurate.
Blah blah blah goes insipid spreading his fascist GOP agenda. How much is the RNC paying you? Obviously they’re not getting their money’s worth.
“Insipid- entitlements will have to be cut. The problem cannot be solved by simply “taxing the rich”, we’re spending way beyond our means. Of course, “fair share” gets thrown around alot by whinging crybabies like you, but how fair is it that 48% of this country’s citizens pay no federal taxes at all, yet still recieve money back on “tax returns”?” I’m sorry, but everyone who has a job pays federal taxes in the form of payrole taxes. Furthermore we WERE spending way beyond our means under George W. Bush, now we are not as is evidenced by the fact that the deficit is going DOWN under PBO. “Constitutionally, the federal government is supposed to provide for national defense. It IS NOT supposed to provide bullshit safety nets, healthcare, or retirement programs for it’s citizens.” First off, i reject the entire notion that Conservatives get to keep the Constitution as their own personal binky, decidieng what the founders did and did not want. The fact is that promoting the general welfare is in the same preamble as providing for the common defense. Whether you like it of not these “bullshit” safety nets DO promote the general welfare. Medicare alone has cut elderly poverty in half. There is no one answer to the debt problem, but the ones that are being unreasonable here are Republicans,not Democrats. A billionaire paying 15% in Federal Taxes is obscene, even billionaires say so. Paying 30% won’t alter his standard of living, hell paying 90% won’t. And as far as the mantra that it would kill jobs, well where are the jobs NOW? Right NOW taxation is as low as it has been at any time in 50 years and has been so for the past decade. The problem is Republicans. I hate to break it to you but the military budget is going to get slashed LONG before Social security. These “bullshit” programs are popular, and people have been paying into them for their whole lives. The choice between spending more than the rest of the world combined in Military spending and seeing their SS… Read more »
the real facts are that the republicans and democrats are both crooks.. I thought this site was a mil blog but yet I am coming to realize that it is a blame Obama for everything site.. Obama is doing a shitty job but Bush did a pretty shitty job himself.. I find it laughable that some of you guys think either party cares more about anything except for lining their own pockets.
If you ask me who I would rather have Obama,Romney or Skunk Vomit (Newt Gingrich) I would have to pick Obama. Romney and Skunk Vomit wouldn’t think twice about fucking us vets over.
You… You realize that under Obama, the national debt has been raised over 5 trillion, insipid? To a total of 15 trillion and change? That is higher, not lower, than before. It took big spending Bushitler eight years to raise it 5T. Took Obama less than four. Also, how long has it been since the dems have passed a budget? The republicans put one up for a vote after they were elected. The senate still hasn’t approved one. It’s been well over three years. How many times has the debt cieling been raised under Obama as a result of the feds not having a fucking clue how much they get to spend per year? You regressives abuse the hell out of two words in the preamble, ignore a few words in the second ammendment, completely disregard the tenth ammendment, and promote the hell out of a few words of the seventeenth, turning it into a handy blanket clause for federal power. So take that “binky” crap, and shove it right up your pretentious ass. “Promote the general welfare” does not mean “give money away to certain people so they vote for you”. Else you’d see gop idiots saying that “general welfare” applies to corporate tax rates, because it impacts the economy. The “elderly poverty rate” problem (like that was ever a crisis in this country worthy of destroying itself over) has been solved at the cost of future generations’ general welfare. Good job. Medicare is broke, and unsustainable. Social security is too. They need reform, even Bill Clinton says so (now. Everything was just peachy when he was in office, of course). But your big plan is to keep those two (at roughly 40% of our current spending) untouched, and focus solely on slashing the military budget, or, roughly 19% of our spending. How much can be taken out of that 19% without crippling our capability? I’d say we can comfortably lose a few points. Not enough to stop the hurt that’s coming down the line all by itself, though. The hard truth is that everything must be slashed. There… Read more »
I do realize that the debt went up 5 trillion dollars under Obama, but i also realize that it all but 1 trillion dollars of it is Bush’s fault. As I explained in another post, Obama stopped the accounting gimick of paying for the wars in emergency supplementals. Furthermore, because of the Bush caused massive recession there has been a massive outlay of food-stamps and unemployment benefits, plus less incoming revenue do to joblessness. I- and Obama- will cop to the 1 trillion dollars in stimulus, wich did create 3 million jobs. But the rest is all Bush’s fault. I did not say the debt went down under Obama, i said the deficit has gone down under him. The debt is the amount of money we owe the deficit is the shortfall of revenue vs. expenses. While the debt has gone up under Obama, mostly because of the Bush recession, the deficit has gone down: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/obamas-2011-budget-3834-trillion-deficit-slightly-2010/story?id=9717948 http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142 As far as the Constitution goes, you guys have turned the common defense line into an excuse for a military industrial complex and a permanent empire, pretend that the militia clause does not exist, ignore completely the MASSIVE powers given to the federal government in the actual text of the Constitution in order to make your fantasy Constitution complete with a neutered federal government (except for reproduction rights and rights to protect millionaires). The fact is that the Founders HAD a weak federal government in the articles of confedederation. If that’s what they wanted they wouldn’t of bothered replacing it with the Constitution in the first place. The hard truth is that you guys don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and never did. You have no business talking to anyone else about what “must” be slashed when you passed Medicare Part D, two tax cuts, two wars and didn’t pay for a goddamn thing. Take your lectures as to what “must” be done and stick them up YOUR ass. The fact is that if everyone pitches in a little bit, no one has to suffer. Austerity has been tried in Greece… Read more »
Yeah, one constant argument from the racist, Insipid,”it’s Bush’s fault”.
Still waiting on your apology to those who aren’t Caucasian, for your unwarranted and racist characterization of people who drive Escalades and Expeditions, and use Bridge cards as all being minorities, Insipid.
How can anyone even measure a deficit, when the government has no budget? If you don’t know how much is coming in and how much is being spent, you can’t know how much your deficit is.
Oh, and here’s a fact you can stick up your ass, asshole. If your construction worker is paying taxes in the 35% range, his taxable income is north of $379,100. That’s after his deductions, numbnuts. And, if 49% of the people aren’t paying taxes, they aren’t paying taxes, what part of that is so hard for you to understand?
Oh, and numbnuts, it’s “canard”, not “kinnard”. Go back to your 10th grade English class.
There is no fucking way you can possibly be this goddamned stupid, but here goes: There can be no deficit reduction when there’s no fucking budget to compare spending to. That was my point. HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SURPLUS OR DEFICIT YOU’RE RUNNING WHEN YOU DON’T HAVE A BUDGET? Your links are shit. One is from 2010, touting “the President’s budget”. There’s no such thing. There’s a president’s budget proposal, but not a president’s budget. He’s not a king, he doesn’t set his own rules. Congress tells him how much there is to be spent, after both houses settle on a budget plan, with separate proposals submitted from the president, congress, and senate. There has not been a federal budget since 2009, though, because democrats either don’t understand what their job entails, or are intentionally not passing a budget so idiots like you can be fed the talking point of “we’re reducing the deficit” without actual numbers to back it up. Just like the “jobs created or saved” stat. At any rate, that link you posted from ABC news shows it’s age when it says that your precious deficit savings came when he let the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” expire. We all know that never happened. Obama extended those cuts. Since the president’s 2010 budget proposal depended on that revenue to show “savings”, well… you’re an idiot for not reading the link before pasting it. I’m not even going to look at that other bullshit link. Truth-out is a progressive talking point generator, and I’ll dismiss that just as fast as you would dismiss a link to the CATO institute. Oh, and your god-king Obama’s budget proposal failed 97-0 in 2011 in the Democrat-controlled senate, because it was almost as goddamned stupid as you are. Almost. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget Now, for your idiotic Elizabeth Warren bullshit about evil rich people using roads more than us working people: Gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance. As a result, shipping companies, and anyone else who use roads more than ordinary people, pour more into state and federal coffers. Use more gas,… Read more »
“WORK for a living unlike Romney the Waltons and the Koch brothers who were born on third base and think they hit a triple”. Thank you, Comrade Insipid. Just FYI, the Waltons did work, they were the ones who built Wal-Mart, I know, you’d be much happier if they were still cashiers, but guess what, they aren’t. Same for the Koch family, same for the Romney family. At least, not a single one of them confiscated belongings of their fellow citizens after they were carted off to the camps. And, I seemed to notice a decided lack of reference to Jawn F’ing Kerry, who married his money, or the Rockefellers, or the Kennedys, who seem to have been born halfway between home and third base and think they’re entitled to walk home.