Obama is actually the SMALLEST GOVERNMENT SPENDER SINCE EISENHOWER. You bought into the lie that the whopping increase in spending in Obama's first year was his doing when in fact, the president before him, BUSH and his congress is the ones that sets the budget for the first year of the next president after him (2009), spending increased a whopping 17.9% and that spending was set months BEFORE Obama even took the oath.
And if you knew anything about government works, that a president can't spend any monies above that alloted to the executive branch as discretionary, and were able to do just a little research you would find that the democratic controlled congress, house and senate, upped that spending in the last two years bush was in office, over his vetos.
Plus, if that really was the national sentiment, then Obama wouldn't have been reelected. You just pulled that poll right out of your ass.
Let's see, poll after poll states that over 50% of the population thinks we're heading in the wrong direction, obama's popularity is over 50%. He didn't get re-elected on his or democrat's policies, he was re-elected the same way a prom queen is elected.[/quote]
Robbed? Right there you said it, if you where that wealthy, you would invest in a way that you pay NO TAXES AT ALL. That is the problem, wealthy people don't want to pay their fair share. They actually don't want to pay anything. That is all we are asking, for them to pay a fair share. Why should a janitor have to pay a higher rate than someone like Romney?
Janitor's don't pay higher rates than romney. If that janitor invested his money he too would be paying a lower rate on those investments. Romney doesn't take a paycheck from his ventures, he invests his money, which by the way was already taxed. Fair share? Who uses more of the services provided by our tax money? Who pays by far a larger share of the taxes to our federal government? To criminalize those people that take advantage of tax breaks given by the code is idotic. I bet you do it every year. Go directly to jail. Hell I'm not rich and I don't want to pay taxes. I see it as wasted money. I pay estimated quarterly taxes so I don't over pay. Why let the government waste my money when I can invest it for an actual return? If you get back more than $.01 in your tax return you are an idiot.
I think I've already proven you don't really know or understand the facts, so how can you get the math right? And it's not about for how long the government will run on the extra tax money from them, it's about fairness.
It has never been about fair taxes. If that were so there would be a FLAT TAX for all citizens. That is the only fair way to do it.
Look at the chart below, your telling me the bulk of wealth isn't at the top?
As it should be. This isn't a socialist country, yet. Want more of that money, get out there and get it.
Wage and salary workers, 80% of America only holds 11% of the wealth. The top 5%, all upper class, hold 72% of the wealth. It's not about "subtracting from the rich guys and adding to the poor guys", it's about fairness in who pays the bills for our government and it's services.
Pays the bills for our government and services. If you go and get your car worked on I'm sure as hell not going to pay the bill.http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Example: You make $20/hr, I make $10/hr. We both get raises of 50%. You gain $10/hr, I gain $5/hr. We both gained 50% but you gained double what I did. Fair? Yep.
Since you didn't know Obama spends less than any president since eisenhower and you got it wrong on who holds the wealth, I'd say you are the one that hasn't thought it through, can't get the math right or understand how things really work, but I'll go on.
Since you don't understand how our government works and the rules and regulations therein I'll go on. NO president can spend monies above the discretionary fund of the executive branch. Only congress sets budgets. There is no other way it happens. Simple math, since Jan 2009 until present, our country's debt has more than doubled. Who then is to blame? Can't be bush, established that using our own constitution. Can't be obama, established that using our constitution. Has to be congress. What levels of spending have we ben under since 2007? Congress. Who controlled congress in 2007? Democrats? Who won't set a budget, even present a budget? Democrats.
You believe that because you believed a lie, like the ones above I've already proven you wrong. The economy is doing better. Look at the chart below that shows jobs going off a cliff and guess when they started to get better? Businesses started hiring right after Obama was elected, because they where confident in the market. Plus this economy would be doing better if the top 1% didn't get 90% of the income growth and Republican representatives actually helped to make it better instead of trying their best to kill it so that Obama would look bad.
Businesses didn't start hiring right after obama took office. In fact, more people are unemployed presently than when he did take office. Remember, unemployment figures released are not the number of actual employed or unemployed. You have to actually read the BLS reports to get to the U6 category.
The reason the markets dropped is the prospect of the Republicans not compromising on a solution for the “Fiscal Cliff”. They are betting the Republicans care more about being in power and making Obama look bad. Matter of fact, the reason the economy is only recovering this slowly is due to them not compromising. They are the reason we lost our credit rating. Their failure to compromise cost us then and it continues to cost us. They would rather the economy DIDN'T recover, so they can blame it on Obama. So I agree on the last point, those businesses and stock holders can see a disaster coming, because they know Republican representatives care more about themselves than they do about the country, or the people that live in it.
The democrats won't compromise either. The reason we lost our credit rating was the inability to come to agreement in congress on a budget (democrats didn't even propose one), the increasing amount of debt the country was incurring, and the looming spectre of the PPCA. Even if the republicans raised taxes on the rich only as the democrats want, the remaining reasons will still apply. We don't deserve the rating we have and I had hoped that it would have dropped further. When spending is out of control the FIRST step to take is to stop spending.
Ok, now I think I've proven you do not truly understand the economy or how things really work, being so wrong on everything. Anyone should just discount you as no more different or smarter than the talking heads on BMN, Lush Limpdick and Karl Rove, who also doesn't get his math right with reality, but, to give them credit, it did fool you I guess, and that was their goals.
But I guess you'll come back with a response that I'm wrong because “Hannity” said so or cite some poll that doesn't exist or may-be some “study” that wasn't done with facts or real data, but just a conservatives bloggers opinions. Like Romney did.
You repeatedly use liberal sources for your links and you think tiger is hooked on hannity? Take from a registered Independent, neither republicans or democrats have all of the answers. Fiscally the republicans are light years ahead of the liberals. Socially the liberals ar light years ahead of the republicans. Both sides need to go away, permanently. You say republicans were blocking obama spending? Really? Where was the democrats budget? You can't even have a discussion without a proposal yet the democrats blame the republicans? Did you even read the proposal on medicare from ryan? It took from the rich by charging them more for their services and gave that money back to program to use for the poor. Vouchers were available but not mandatory, the richest wouldn't even be covered under medicare. Did you read the ryan budget that closed tax loopholes on, gulp, big oil, ending the subsidies that so many of the liberals in congress support because the companies operate in their districts? I know I read it. What I couldn't read was the proposed budget put forth by the democrats. There wasn't one.
Simple math Neo. Spending more than you take in is stupidity at the lowest level. When I was limited in my income I reduced spending. I didn't keep on spending like I was earning it.
I hope this country can turn it around. Not back to where we were, or even staying where we're at. I'm looking for a revolution in government. One where the republicans and democrats are outnumbered by people with no party.