Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1522891 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830842 Dec 30, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
In his first Sunday show interview since his reelection, President Barack Obama admonished congressional Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise over debt-reduction and implored the media to cast aside its pox-on-both-your-houses coverage.
With the deadline to negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff looming in the backdrop, the president took to "Meet the Press" to defend his efforts to try and find common ground. He noted that he had moved off his initial demands for revenue (once $1.6 trillion, now $1.2 trillion), agreed to entitlement reforms (reduced Social Security benefits) and already passed hefty spending cuts ($1 trillion as part of the Budget Control Act in 2011). And for that, he added, he was still waiting for Republicans to get closer to half-way.
“We have been talking to the Republicans ever since the election was over. They have had trouble saying yes to a number of repeated offers,” said the president, according to an advance transcript of the interview. He would add, later:“[S]o far, at least, Congress has not been able to get this stuff done. Not because Democrats in Congress don't want to go ahead and cooperate, but because I think it's been very hard for Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader McConnell to accept the fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package.”
The president's tone was tougher than usual. In the past, he’s been hesitant to directly rebuke congressional Republicans, choosing instead to attack the legislative body as a whole.
But the last few weeks of negotiations have clearly frustrated both him and his staff. White House aides were particularly piqued at Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for shelving negotiations over a larger fiscal cliff deal in pursuit of a tax-rate-only option. That ended the legislative progress in the House and forced the Senate to pick up talks. With just days before tax rates rise on all income rates and $1 trillion in decade-long spending cuts go into effect, Senate leaders met on Saturday to find a way through the impasse.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/pres...
before you have a cow.....
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-two percent (42%) at least somewhat disapprove
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten...
i wonder how high it'll go after that interview? i'll let ya know.
Carol must be thrilled to see these moves towards compromise, especially the SS cuts.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830843 Dec 30, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>no, you the nut and do know nothing of what Capitalism is or what Private Ownership is Captialism is, he again
In this article, you'll explore capitalism: its roots, principles and effects, benefits and shortcomings. We'll find out how capitalism compares to the alternative method of doing business. Incidentally, the United States doesn't actually practice capitalism. No one does these days.
Real Capitalism: The Idea
Befor­e the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, countries like Britain and the United States had true capitalist economies. With industrialization, though, came sweat shops, social protest and resulting government intervention in the form of fair labor laws. That's when real capitalism ended.
Today, the economies of nations that are typically referred to as capitalist are in fact mixed economies -- they incorporate certain aspects of capitalism and certain aspects of planed economies. In pure capitalism, things like child labor laws, Social Security, anti-discriminatory hiring practices and a minimum wage have no place. Capitalism rejects all government intervention in economic matters.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/capitalism1.ht...
The author's no economist but her article still says nothing to undermine my argument or to support whatever the he11 your "argument" is. It even goes so far as to say:

"Befor­e the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, countries like Britain and the United States had true capitalist economies"

What exactly is your point?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#830844 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it appears to be something you want to do but can't.
Interesting how you're now avoiding your previous position on the Constitution and capitalism but instead, rely on your personal opinions again.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830845 Dec 30, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you sure do need a lesson on Capitalism.
You got your lesson from an English major and it shows.

Go ahead, look up the HowTo article's author's credentials.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#830846 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Carol must be thrilled to see these moves towards compromise, especially the SS cuts.
Well I don't know about carol, but MY favorites are the cuts to education and firefighters.

Takers suck, and stuff.

;)
carol

Orlando, FL

#830847 Dec 30, 2012
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is, I would really like a link to statistics to confirm This.
I don't really care about ant farms or trucks, I'm more interested in America.
Thanks though
I just figured since you couldn't grasp your head around $16 trillion, it would be easier to simplify it. No offense.

But maybe this will help from the Wall Street Journal:

A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235615510653...

Keep in mind this is from 3 years ago. The deficit has increased by a few trillion since then.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830848 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
If finding less in your paycheck - no matter how much you earn - because more will be taken out for federal income tax and SS tax is what you call restoring...
...yimminy cricket...
Can't stand paying for all the cr ap you demanded. What a shrew!
carol

Orlando, FL

#830849 Dec 30, 2012
OldRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a solvent government in 2000, that's when you air head right-wingers turned it over to an idiot. He de-regulated the banks, started an unprovoked and unpaid for war which sent the economy into the toilet. Under adult leadership since 2008 we are slowly climbing out of the sewer, even with an obstructionist Republican house whose primary, and admitted, goal is to destroy the leadership of our country.
You're living in FOX's fantasy world.
Who controlled the purse strings for six years prior to 2000?

How come you guys never think of that?
carol

Orlando, FL

#830851 Dec 30, 2012
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is, I would really like a link to statistics to confirm This.
I don't really care about ant farms or trucks, I'm more interested in America.
Thanks though
I should have included the next part in the WSJ article from three years ago.

"Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235615510653...

You still come up with taxing the 2% is an illusion.
carol

Orlando, FL

#830852 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't stand paying for all the cr ap you demanded. What a shrew!
Tenzing, is that you? You don't have a death wish now, do you?

What crap did I demand? Or, rather, conservatives demand that liberals didn't demand more of?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#830854 Dec 30, 2012
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is, I would really like a link to statistics to confirm This.
I don't really care about ant farms or trucks, I'm more interested in America.
Thanks though
Carol believes we're either ants or grasshoppers. From what I've gathered, she's an ant, and everyone else is a grasshopper.

Personally, I tend to liken myself more to a firefly,
but that's just me.

:)

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830855 Dec 30, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Here's what you said son...
"I can tell you why, the Constitution defines the government and does not dictate a particular economic system but capitalism is heavily implied. Can you think of any other economic system that is compatible with the Constitution? I can't."
There was NO question. Just a statement on your part. An incorrect one, I might add.
I know what I said and neither you nor Anonymous have refuted it. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find authority granted to the government to control the means of production save the post office and post roads and in that it does not even grant exclusive authority.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#830856 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
I should have included the next part in the WSJ article from three years ago.
"Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235615510653...
You still come up with taxing the 2% is an illusion.
What you 'should have included,' carol, is 30 minutes of A. A. Milne.

Lincoln

United States

#830858 Dec 30, 2012
Republican House gets the blame for taxing 98 percent of Americans on Jan 1.

Added to reputation for nominating two Senate Rape candidates.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#830859 Dec 30, 2012
The worst year in Washington: The tea party

The Gadsden flag, which flew proudly over the 2010 midterm elections, now lies in tatters — rent by internal disagreements, losses among its most visible standard-bearers and a growing sense that the tea party movement, which once looked like it could transform American politics, will soon be nothing more than a blip in the country’s collective memory.

The movement’s journey from boom to bust is the story of American politics writ large. The tea party’s ups and downs (in 2012, mostly downs) highlight some of the key forces shaping today’s battles — from the fissures that threaten to destroy the Republican Party to the perils of a leaderless or multi-leader effort to the difference between proving a point and winning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-wo...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830860 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, time to set the record straight once and for all.
When most people hear the words,“tax hike”, they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.
Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent but the tax code was also indexed for inflation.
Tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. Many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.
One of the tax increases Reagan signed - the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 - was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. Another was a cigarette tax - Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. These are real tax increases but should not be confused with the income tax.
Criticism from free marketers on the right was his raising the capital gains tax rate as well as the corporate rate — Tax Reform Act of 1986. These were real tax increases and, in some cases,“regressive” taxation, but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era.
Congressional Democrats promised Reagan, "We’ll cut spending if you raise taxes.”
Reagan was offered such a deal in 1982. It’s the reason he reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase of his presidency - the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
The Democratic Congress then promptly proceeded to ignore the planned spending cuts.
Of course.
... and consequently the debt had QUADRUPLED by GHW Bush's term. Y'all want too much government for such low taxes. I think income taxes are stupid but then again, so is the electorate. The theft you're perpetrating on future generations is unconscionable, you want everything but you refuse to pay for it. Do you go steal money out of your daughter's savings?

Yes, you do.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#830861 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
I should have included the next part in the WSJ article from three years ago.
"Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235615510653...
You still come up with taxing the 2% is an illusion.
lol! You're comparing what the article is discussing three years ago to NOW?

It's interesting that you took an article that was less than two weeks after he took office to make your case.

You clearly have forgotten the previous 6 months and most certainly, the previous 8 years of bushie's "economic boom" that cons like to spout!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#830863 Dec 30, 2012
Best year in Washington: Nate Silver

Republicans reacted with outrage as Silver’s model kept pumping out predictions that Obama had an 80 percent (or higher) chance of winning. A columnist for the Examiner chain critiqued Silver’s appearance and voice. Others questioned how anyone could predict to the percentage point the likelihood of Obama winning or losing. Even the mighty David Brooks — himself a columnist for the Gray Lady — scoffed at the idea of making calculations accurate to the decimal point:“If there’s one thing we know, it’s that even experts with fancy computer models are terrible at predicting human behavior.”

The net effect was that Silver — a shy guy by nature — turned into a political football. He became a household name nationwide and, by some reports, accounted for 20 percentor more of the Times’ overall Web traffic as the election approached.

If Silver was big before the election, he turned huge — like Jay-Z/Beyonce huge — after it. Jon Stewart called him the “God of the algorithm.” President Obama referenced Silver when talking about the annual turkey pardon. Silver was named Out Magazine’s person of the year. He even sat down with Fix hero Bill Simmons (a.k.a. the Sports Guy) for an hour-long podcast.(And, yes, we are VERY jealous.)

For Nate Silver — and political nerds, statisticians and number-crunchers everywhere — it was a very good year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/best-y...

Maybe FOX should hire Nate.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#830864 Dec 30, 2012
Lincoln wrote:
Republican House gets the blame for taxing 98 percent of Americans on Jan 1.
Added to reputation for nominating two Senate Rape candidates.
And that's because they cheered this as a "victory" last year to score political points with the tea-p idiots.

Now the dummies have to reap what they sowed.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#830865 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
You got your lesson from an English major and it shows.
Go ahead, look up the HowTo article's author's credentials.
Obvisously you are still in denial of facts when presented and I know that article is correct about Capitalism.

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
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 42 min uIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 240,368
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Resist 105,136
last post wins! (Apr '13) 4 hr honeymylove 2,466
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 hr _Zoey_ 10,592
Look at Minn. Maine & Michigan. 8 hr Hate Apathy 16
News Ultra Foods in Crestwood offers array of prepar... (Jun '12) 15 hr Shamrock 33
My heart is open for a real man~ 20 hr SpreadUrThighs 10

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages