Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#813599 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>why should anyone have more than anyone else? it isn't "fair."
'Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston,$39,500; in New York,$37,900.
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
While the old poverty measure counted absolute purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy), the new measure counts comparative purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy RELATIVE to other people.)
This means it will be difficult to reduce poverty in America no matter how much the living conditions of the poor actually improve. Imagine a sprinter in a race where the finish line is moved back four feet every time the runner takes a step.
Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double. Under this new definition, we can reduce poverty only if the incomes of the “poor” rise much faster than those of everyone else.
The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”
Divorced from actual living conditions, the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.
Read more:‘Poverty’ like we’ve never seen it - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolu...
Oh they are going to all over you for this one! That last part sounds like the plan,right?

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813600 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>why should anyone have more than anyone else? it isn't "fair."
'Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston,$39,500; in New York,$37,900.
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
While the old poverty measure counted absolute purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy), the new measure counts comparative purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy RELATIVE to other people.)
This means it will be difficult to reduce poverty in America no matter how much the living conditions of the poor actually improve. Imagine a sprinter in a race where the finish line is moved back four feet every time the runner takes a step.
Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double. Under this new definition, we can reduce poverty only if the incomes of the “poor” rise much faster than those of everyone else.
The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”
Divorced from actual living conditions, the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.
Read more:‘Poverty’ like we’ve never seen it - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolu...
If living in poverty is such a blast, why don't you try it?

And really, I have been to auctions where you could buy a used AC window unit for $25, a big screen TV for $30, and used computers for $5.00. Heck, I bought a used laptop for $5,.00 last year at a yard sale.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813603 Nov 29, 2012
Voters in key three swing states preferred President Barack Obama to Mitt Romney on gun control issues, and overwhelmingly support a number of gun control measures, according to a poll released Thursday from an advocacy group.

The survey of voters in Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado found 45 percent of voters trusted Obama on gun issues, compared with only 40 percent who trusted Romney.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/poll-sw...
ra_con_teur

Oklahoma City, OK

#813605 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
There are few middle class Americans who are effected by capital gains taxes. The vast majority is by those making over $250K.
The tax cut on capital gains heavily favored the wealthy.
You crazy....
>...only 54 percent of Americans said they own "individual stock, a stock mutual fund or in a self-directed 401(k) or IRA." ....<

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/stoc...

thats 170 million...?....RICH PEOPLE DAVEY??????????

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#813606 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
There are few middle class Americans who are effected by capital gains taxes. The vast majority is by those making over $250K.
The tax cut on capital gains heavily favored the wealthy.
You are seriously clueless. There are a lot of middle class people who live off capital gains and dividends.i know several people who buy stocks in the spring and fall when the price is low and sell in the winter and fall when the price is high. T is capital gains twice a year. They will pay double on that cutting the liveable earnings in half. All of them receive dividends too. That too will be taxed at a higher rate. again cutting their liveable income. Because you don't do it doesn't mean a lot others don't. A few have told me they are going back to their old line of work and just let it ride till this shitstorm is over. So you won't get any new revenue from them. In fact you will lose some.

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813610 Nov 29, 2012
ra_con_teur wrote:
<quoted text>
You crazy....
>...only 54 percent of Americans said they own "individual stock, a stock mutual fund or in a self-directed 401(k) or IRA." ....<
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/stoc...
thats 170 million...?....RICH PEOPLE DAVEY??????????
IRA accounts are not subject to capital gains if they are held until retirement.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813611 Nov 29, 2012
new yawkie wrote:
I think the better question Is: Is Obama a pathological liar by nature?
And are **Liberals Hippo-Critical Degenerate Reprobates by Nature?
But how could you know?
You never "look" at your own party with an objective mind, independent of the liberal talking points and the LSM spoon fed pablum you gobble up.
**Not inclusive of all.
<quoted text>
so i can assume you're not a FOXbot? or is the first statement indicative?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#813615 Nov 29, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
Why Conservatives Must Surrender on 'Redistribution'
....Eventually, if conservatives want to keep putting their stamp on American economic policy, they will have to give in to that reality that government must become more redistributive. Otherwise, the Republican Party will be left with an economic appeal to an affluent minority of the population and an ethnic appeal to a shrinking older white-voter base -- and that will win them fewer and fewer elections.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-29/why-...
the so called Conservatives where for Redistrubution and TARP is proof.
TSM

El Paso, TX

#813617 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
If living in poverty is such a blast, why don't you try it?
RealDave you mean you’re not going to participate in Obama’s ‘Transforming America? Dave you did vote for Obama…Right? Tell me if I’m wrong, 1 in 6 Americans in Poverty, 47 million on Food Stamps, 23 million unemployed, so under Obama’s leadership we have become a Welfare Nation!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813619 Nov 29, 2012
The GOP's Empathy Challenge

Republicans are perceived as uncaring and aloof. That obviously has to change.

There has been a lot of discussion since Election Day about what went wrong for Republicans, and what they need to do to win again in the future. In my view, Republicans' challenge is captured in one word: empathy, the act of understanding and being sensitive to the feelings and experiences of others.

While Republicans are not necessarily less empathetic than Democrats, they are perceived that way by voters. And in politics, perception is reality.

Mitt Romney brought many qualities to the campaign. He exuded competence and had a keen grasp of the issues and a plausible plan to fix the nation's problems. He had a proven record of business accomplishment and had shown the ability to bring disparate political factions together. One quality that eluded him was empathy.

Polls throughout the campaign showed Romney behind President Obama by sizeable margins on empathy-related issues -- on which candidate cared about average people; which would represent ordinary Americans; which was more likeable.

On Election Day, exit polls found more voters shared Romney's values and felt he'd be a better steward of the economy. But Obama won the empathy vote going away.

Voters had a more favorable view of Obama, and he won by 10 points on the question, "Who is more in touch with people like you?"

And for voters whose top attribute in a candidate was that he "cares about people like me," Obama won by a mind-blowing 63 points.

Of course, it wasn't just Romney but the entire Republican Party that suffered from an empathy deficit. At pivotal moments throughout the campaign Republicans came across as uncaring and insensitive.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/29/the-...

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813624 Nov 29, 2012
flack wrote:
<quoted text> You are seriously clueless. There are a lot of middle class people who live off capital gains and dividends.i know several people who buy stocks in the spring and fall when the price is low and sell in the winter and fall when the price is high. T is capital gains twice a year. They will pay double on that cutting the liveable earnings in half. All of them receive dividends too. That too will be taxed at a higher rate. again cutting their liveable income. Because you don't do it doesn't mean a lot others don't. A few have told me they are going back to their old line of work and just let it ride till this shitstorm is over. So you won't get any new revenue from them. In fact you will lose some.
I seriously doubt you know lots of middle class people doing this.

Why is their income from trading pieces of paper any different from someone working a job for theirs?

Furthermore if they buy in the spring & sell in the fall as you said, they have not kept their investments long enough to qualify for the long term capital gains tax rate & their capital gain income would be taxed as ordinary income.

Did I just catch Flacktard in a big lie?
OBAMA the GENIUS

Lillington, NC

#813626 Nov 29, 2012
flack wrote:
<quoted text> You are seriously clueless. There are a lot of middle class people who live off capital gains and dividends.i know several people who buy stocks in the spring and fall when the price is low and sell in the winter and fall when the price is high. T is capital gains twice a year. They will pay double on that cutting the liveable earnings in half. All of them receive dividends too. That too will be taxed at a higher rate. again cutting their liveable income. Because you don't do it doesn't mean a lot others don't. A few have told me they are going back to their old line of work and just let it ride till this shitstorm is over. So you won't get any new revenue from them. In fact you will lose some.
Then why cry about it?

If everyone will avoid it.

Hey mannnnn!

400 people alone worth $1.7 Trillion.

Total citizen wealth:$47 Trillion.

Top 10% own 90% of that.

That is not a healthy economy. Income splits out like that too. When are these few rich at the top going to spend enough to drive demand in the economy?

Answer: never!

USA richest country on earth: why does the economy crawl?

Rich people already had everything they needed BEFORE Bush tax cuts windfall. No new demand. Just selfish greedy hoarding.

Obama the genius is changing this fffffed up situation to stimulate demand and pay down debt. Tell a rich guy: pay up crynaby! The USA NEEDS YOU! HELP YOUR COUNTRY!! DEADBEATS!!

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813627 Nov 29, 2012
TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
RealDave you mean you’re not going to participate in Obama’s ‘Transforming America? Dave you did vote for Obama…Right? Tell me if I’m wrong, 1 in 6 Americans in Poverty, 47 million on Food Stamps, 23 million unemployed, so under Obama’s leadership we have become a Welfare Nation!!
Yes the effects of the Bush recession linger on. This is what happens when you have the worst recession on 80 years.

As usual, you're just another dumbass right whiner blaming Obama for the Bush recession. I have news, that is really boring & quite pathetic.
THE DEBIL

Tempe, AZ

#813630 Nov 29, 2012
THE DEBIL wrote:
Jane have you ever thought about being with another fat woman?
Sexually? I'm avaiable! And since dem is also a porker, he's available if you like fattys.
UH-HUH. UM, DOES "AVAIABLE" MEAN YOU CAN FLY?
THE DEBIL

Tempe, AZ

#813632 Nov 29, 2012
THE DEBIL wrote:
I dream of jane and I.
Stick my tongue in your ass.
OH FO' GOODNESS SAKES, IF YOU GONNA SAY IT, YOU GOT TO LET FOLKS KNOW YOU MEAN IT... YOU AIN'T NEVER GONNA GET LAID LIKE THAT! HERE, LET DEBIL SHOW YOU. THEN YOU DO IT, K?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813636 Nov 29, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>the so called Conservatives where for Redistrubution and TARP is proof.
good read.

Rick Santorum, Earmarxists, and the Pro-Life Statist

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/29/rick...
TSM

El Paso, TX

#813639 Nov 29, 2012
new yawkie wrote:
<quoted text>
Texas?
I bet you don't bathe.
Sticky, hairy, shriveled balls like my husband.
New Yawkie :Someone said that you are not fit to sleep with pigs. I stuck up for the pigs.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813640 Nov 29, 2012
new yawkie wrote:
<quoted text>
I love Fox News.
Fair and balanced.
you might be on to something....

Bill O'Reilly Mocks Guest's Choice Of Paul Ryan For Time "Person Of The Year": "He Couldn't Even Carry His State"

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/11/28/bill...

now if only that sort of thing happened on FOX more than once a month.....

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#813642 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt you know lots of middle class people doing this.
Why is their income from trading pieces of paper any different from someone working a job for theirs?
Furthermore if they buy in the spring & sell in the fall as you said, they have not kept their investments long enough to qualify for the long term capital gains tax rate & their capital gain income would be taxed as ordinary income.
Did I just catch Flacktard in a big lie?
Actually they buy in the spring and sell in summer. Buy in the fall and sell in the winter. It's capital gains not income. Jeesh! No different than buying a house and selling it later for a profit. You are blinded by your ideology you can't see how you are going to hurt the very people you claim to want to help.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813646 Nov 29, 2012
too freakin' good....

You Think Obama Stole the Election? Then Read This

We try hard to be a serious website where serious-minded people can interact and a website that can be read and quoted in the media and in political circles without people laughing and pointing. You can’t do that when your comments section is infested with people espousing various conspiracy theories.

RedState has never been simpatico to conspiracy theories. In our history we’ve dealt with 9-11 Troofers and Birfers and all manner of believers in the omnipresence of Opus Dei, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, and, of course, the Jews and their ability to manipulate world events. Our response is to ban them on sight.

This last election was a hard loss of all of us, even those of us who were never Romney fans. I think we all realized the limitless ability to harm the nation that Barack Obama and his minions represents. Be that as it may, the people have spoken (the bastards) and we are saddled with this guy for another four years.

If we are going to move beyond this we have to face the facts. We were out hustled. They turned out their base and we couldn’t be bothered to turn out ours, much less do what it takes to win uncommitted voters. We lost. They won. And the nation will suffer because of it.

What did not happen was any “stealing” of the election. No one denies that there were irregularities in some places but the sum total of the allegations do not reach Kennedyesque proportions where they actually affected the outcome in any material way. This is nonsense and just as silly when people on our side make the claim as when the left howled about Diebold machines giving the 2004 election to President George W. Bush (President… George… W.… Bush, my gosh that sounds so beautiful today).

So, heads up. We have made a decision that we will, henceforth and forever, treat those who claim Obama won the 2012 election via shenanigans in the polling place the same way we treat troofers and birfers. We will immediately ban them. We don’t have time to shoot down these arguments every time the appear because they have been definitively refuted on many occasions. If you hold this exotic view and are feeling all butthurt, too bad. Life isn’t fair. If life was fair we’d be anticipating the inauguration of President Mitt Romney Rick Perry and watching the Obama’s pack the U-Haul.

http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/29/you-think-...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 min Hole open wides 49,878
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 13 min Grau 68,513
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 34 min loose cannon 178,089
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 45 min Twisted Nixon 46,740
Amy 9-20 1 hr Kuuipo 6
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr texas pete 4,723
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 4 hr _Zoey_ 7,785
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••