Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1252783 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.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#830826 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
Guess we'll know soon if the Senate Democrats and President Obama are willing to compromise to keep us all from paying more in taxes next year.
It was Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, after all, who said the Obama administration was prepared to dive off the fiscal cliff if Republicans don't agree to give them everything they want.
Is this the new and improved kind of leadership the majority wanted - castrating the military and creating another recession?
Somebody on the left help me out here.
That was an empty threat. In the fiscal cliff are cuts to government spending. That's poison to them. Their entire strategy requires increased government spending. If you noticed, Republicans are willing to sacrifice some things to achieve some fiscal sanity in our government. A sacrifice would be tax increases. The Democrats cannot sacrifice the primary element of their plan, continued increase of government spending.

Let the fiscal cliff come. It's the only sane thing our government has done in the past 4 years.
I'm satisfied with it. At least government spending is cut. That is the most important thing that needs to be done. We can work the rest out later.
And, NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON. Make the government grow up and live within the means the economy provides.

Judged:

24

24

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#830827 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...
did the Bush cuts cut those taxes?

but i don't see the problem. even Bush didn't see the problem.....

if he did then why weren't they permanent? i'd love to see one of you experts in all things failed present us with the right wing blogger/FOX take on that one.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#830828 Dec 30, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You must have created your own definition son. Here's what I found.....
"
cap·i·tal·ism
[kap-i-tl-iz-uh&#8201;m] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
Right, everything is privately owned in a Society based on Capitalism which there wouldnt be Public Schools, Libraries, & Highways but would be considered Private Schools, Libraries, & Highways owned by private individuals just like the Railroads started out being owned & controlled by Private Individuals.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#830829 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a nut, the question was how the Constitution precluded capitalism.
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.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#830830 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Interpretations are interpretations.
Again, here's your "explanation"...

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.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#830831 Dec 30, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
drop the Bush tax cuts for everyone.
it's not like we'll be raising taxes. just restoring.
Perhaps you had difficulty comprehending the sentence written in the English language below:

There is not enough money to be taxed. If you taxed everyone earning over 250k at 100 percent and made them destitute, you still wouldn't have enough money to pay for Obama's government.

So, where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

Perhaps there needs to be cuts?

The fiscal cliff makes cuts and raises taxes. What's Obama's problem with that?

Let the fiscal cliff come. It's the only sane thing the government has done in the past 4 years.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
carol

Orlando, FL

#830832 Dec 30, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
2002.
Reagan just raised taxes.
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.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
carol

Orlando, FL

#830833 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
That was an empty threat. In the fiscal cliff are cuts to government spending. That's poison to them. Their entire strategy requires increased government spending. If you noticed, Republicans are willing to sacrifice some things to achieve some fiscal sanity in our government. A sacrifice would be tax increases. The Democrats cannot sacrifice the primary element of their plan, continued increase of government spending.
Let the fiscal cliff come. It's the only sane thing our government has done in the past 4 years.
I'm satisfied with it. At least government spending is cut. That is the most important thing that needs to be done. We can work the rest out later.
And, NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON. Make the government grow up and live within the means the economy provides.
There could be a silver lining, as others have also said, in going over this cliff.

I hope you - and they - are right.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Curious

Jamestown, NY

#830834 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you had difficulty comprehending the sentence written in the English language below:
There is not enough money to be taxed. If you taxed everyone earning over 250k at 100 percent and made them destitute, you still wouldn't have enough money to pay for Obama's government.
So, where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
Perhaps there needs to be cuts?
The fiscal cliff makes cuts and raises taxes. What's Obama's problem with that?
Let the fiscal cliff come. It's the only sane thing the government has done in the past 4 years.
I'm curious,

"There is not enough money to be taxed. If you taxed everyone earning over 250k at 100 percent and made them destitute, you still wouldn't have enough money to pay for Obama's government."

Are there statistics to confirm this? Can you provide a link?

Thanks

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#830835 Dec 30, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Very good! You like to post clarity on points where people deliberately obfuscate and like to use the terms "freedom" with "capitalism", don't you?
I will point out between Facts & someones Fiction.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
carol

Orlando, FL

#830836 Dec 30, 2012
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious,
"There is not enough money to be taxed. If you taxed everyone earning over 250k at 100 percent and made them destitute, you still wouldn't have enough money to pay for Obama's government."
Are there statistics to confirm this? Can you provide a link?
Thanks
DBWriter will probably have a better answer.

But picture a semi compared to an ant.

That's how big the deficit is. Try and imagine the number of ants it would take to equal the size of the semi.

Our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying off this debt if we don't start slashing it now.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#830837 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.
think you can apply that reasoning to raising taxes 11 times?

Reagan cut taxes when he could. Raised them when he had to. Why today should be any different defies logic.

and if Reagan gets a pass for what happened during his watch then so does Obama.

Judged:

16

16

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830838 Dec 30, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Why?
Because it appears to be something you want to do but can't.

Judged:

13

13

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Nov 09

Pharr, TX

#830839 Dec 30, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you are correct. The Democrats have no intention of maintaining a solvent government. They are well aware that it is impossible to pay for Obama's government. There is not enough income to be taxed to pay for it, and they are well aware of this. The collapse of our govenment is a certainty.
They intend to use that situation they created for justification of the government taking control of everything....
Thus, beginning a civil war.
That is their intent. They are Marxist. Revolution is their credo. That's the goal of everything they are doing. If you read Saul Alinsky, you can predict everything they do.
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.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#830840 Dec 30, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right, everything is privately owned in a Society based on Capitalism, in which there wouldn't be Public Schools, Libraries, & Highways. Private Schools, Subscription Libraries, & Highways owned by private individuals, just like the Railroads started out being owned & controlled by Private Individuals, would be a massive improvement.
Well, as pure Capitalists , we all deserve the services we can afford, yeah?

Not.
Curious

Jamestown, NY

#830841 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
DBWriter will probably have a better answer.
But picture a semi compared to an ant.
That's how big the deficit is. Try and imagine the number of ants it would take to equal the size of the semi.
Our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying off this debt if we don't start slashing it now.
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

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.

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) 19 min Dr Guru 192,565
SOLUTION ON HOW TO GET AN EX BACK,CONTACT (drdo... 22 min Adele 26
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr USA people 54,013
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr nonattorney spoke... 99,937
9 dead 53 injured 5 hr Right Wing 10
abby7-7-15 6 hr mrs gladys kravitz 7
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 hr White_Lightning 6,156
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages