Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1263855 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.

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.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#830866 Dec 30, 2012
Obama to GOP: Last chance

The key word there is “majorities.” Obama is demanding that Mitch McConnell allow a straight up-or-down vote on Harry Reid’s fallback proposal, if the two sides cannot reach a deal. If no deal is reached, Obama is daring McConnell to filibuster a continued tax cut for the middle class and daring Boehner not to hold a vote on it.

A senior Senate Dem aide tells me that the fallback proposal Reid is working on would extend tax cuts on income just up to $250,000, not up to $400,000, as Obama’s most recent compromise proposal did. What this means is that if Senate Republican leaders fail to agree with Senate Dems on a proposal, the fallback plan Reid will offer will essentially rescind Obama’s offer to raise the income threshold to $400,000.

It’s possible, as many commentators are speculating, that today’s machinations mean Reid and McConnell really may reach a deal. But if not, by daring Republicans one last time to refuse to allow simple majority votes on extending the middle class tax cuts, Obama is signaling that if we do go over the cliff, he intends to extract maximum political pain for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line...

as well he should. he's just playing the game that the republicans started, and there's no good reason why he can't play the same way they do.
Lincoln

United States

#830867 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.
another yarn...l

Problems is not with the President of the US, the only official elected by all the people.

President Barack Obama made a final pitch to Congress to act on the fiscal cliff on Sunday, citing Republican intransigence as Senate leaders struggled to bash out a last-minute deal.

Republicans going to tax the 98%
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#830868 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No one can refute your opinions. The fact of the matter is the US is not a true capitalistic society.

Again, don't confuse political philosophy with an economic one.

As for the Post Office, the government is really in an advisory role. The PO has been for a while now, a profit organization.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#830870 Dec 30, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>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!
but but but, 2007! Dems! Congress!

it's like the economy was great before 2007 or something.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#830871 Dec 30, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Obvisously you are still in denial of facts when presented and I know that article is correct about Capitalism.
And we lament the 'me' generation..........

Wah.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#830873 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
the Hell or you would understand by now, Clause 3, or the Commerce Clause and what the Commerce Clause states and how the Federal Government can regulate Interstate Commerce because of the US Constitution but you must not understand interstate commerce.

interstate commerce - The buying and selling of products and services across state borders.

http://www.investorwords.com/2574/interstate_...

Article 1 Section 8

Clause 3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Congress has the power to impose regulations on interstate and international business. This "interstate commerce clause" has been quite controversial in the history of constitutional law; for a long time, judges tended to read the clause narrowly, overturning federal laws they deemed focused mainly on regulating economic activity within states rather than between them. Since the 1930s, however, judges have tended to read the clause broadly, allowing the government to regulate all kinds of economic activity—by setting a national minimum wage, for example.

http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830874 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Who controlled the purse strings for six years prior to 2000?
How come you guys never think of that?
What's really interesting is what happened over the NEXT six years when you gave 'em a Republican President. THAT's when it all went to sh it.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#830875 Dec 30, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
but but but, 2007! Dems! Congress!
it's like the economy was great before 2007 or something.
lol! I know! As the argument goes, everything was going well and hunky dory until non cons took over the House in 2006 and everything went downhill from there until the near great recession of 2008

Fast forward to 2012 and the Cons have the House again over the past two years and we're still in an economic slump. Worse still the cons don't want to help recover and instead, are NOW sticking to a radical political philosophy.

So really, according to their logic, it's people like Boehner who are the problem!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830876 Dec 30, 2012
RED BANNER OVER BUMFK wrote:
<quoted text>
WOULD YOU PLEASE HURRY UP AND PULL THOSE PANTIES DOWN. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO DEBIL (DEATH), BUT IF YOU INSIST ON FASTIDIOUSNESS OVER COMFORT ...
/j
(Those sunglasses have got to go. They make you look like some kind of supercilious, bloodless little Stepford husband. Or a beetle. Or an alien. Do you wear them so that Earthlings can't see your red-tinged eyes. Anyway, quit trying to appear human. It ain't working ...)
I wear them so aliens can't steal my thoughts.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#830877 Dec 30, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>No one can refute your opinions. The fact of the matter is the US is not a true capitalistic society.
Again, don't confuse political philosophy with an economic one.
As for the Post Office, the government is really in an advisory role. The PO has been for a while now, a profit organization.
Exactly, and US Constitution doesnt allow & rejects a Society based on True Capitalism even Thomas Jefferson rejected & feared a Capitalistic Society and the Term Capitalism had not been invented yet and was invented & termed by Karl Marxs(1818–1883).

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson,(Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/37700.htm...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830878 Dec 30, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Just in the last decade you demanded two wars, increased spending on education, Medicare expansion, more Executive agencies ...

And you still refuse to pay for ANY of it.

Bi tch!

No, don't have a death wish. Wanted to kill off Tenzing with a transition for continuity.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830879 Dec 30, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>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.
:)
Carol is anything but an ant.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#830880 Dec 30, 2012
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
This was written in 2009 add in how much more the wealthiest have accumulated since then (something WSJ did not)
"By Les Leopold
It’s great to know that during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the wealth of the 400 richest Americans, according to Forbes, actually increased by $30 billion. Well golly, that’s only a 2 percent increase, much less than the double digit returns the wealthy had grown accustomed to. But a 2 percent increase is a whole lot more than losing 40 percent of your 401k. And $30 billion is enough to provide 500,000 school teacher jobs at $60k per year.
Collectively, those 400 have $1.57 trillion in wealth. It’s hard to get your mind around a number like that. The way I do it is to imagine that we were still living during the great radical Eisenhower era of the 1950s when marginal income tax rates hit 91 percent. Taxes were high back in the 1950s because people understood that constraining wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger and prevent another depression.(Well, what did those old fogies know?)
Had we kept those high progressive taxes in place, instead of removing them, especially during the Reagan era, the Forbes 400 might each be worth “only”$100 million instead of $3.9 billion each. So let’s imagine that the rest of their wealth, about $1.53 trillion, were available for the public good.
What does $1.53 trillion buy?
It’s more than enough to insure the uninsured for the next twenty years or more.
It’s more than enough to create a Manhattan Project to solve global warming by developing renewable energy and a green, sustainable manufacturing sector.
And here’s my favorite: It’s more than enough to endow every public college and university in the country so that all of our children could gain access to higher education for free, forever!
Instead, we embarked on a grand experiment to see what would happen if we deregulated finance and changed the tax code so that millionaires could turn into billionaires. And even after that experiment failed in the most spectacular way, our system seems trapped into staying on the same deregulated path.
Instead of free higher education, health care and a sustainable economy, we got a fantasy finance boom and bust on Wall Street which crashed the real economy. We have our 400 billionaires, and we have 29 million unemployed and underemployed Americans. We have an infrastructure in shambles. We have an environment in crisis. We have a health care system that would make Rube Goldberg proud. And we have the worst income distribution since 1929.
I hazard to guess that each and every Forbes 400 member could get by with a net worth of $100 million. I don’t think that would kill their entrepreneurial drive or harm our economy–in fact it would be a major boon to the economy to step back from the edge of such massive concentration of wealth. The real problem is getting there from here. A wealth tax that kicks in when you become worth more than $100 million would be a good start. The Eisenhower tax rate on adjustable gross income over $3 million a year would help as well.
And please let’s not call it socialism, now that we’ve placed the entire financial sector on welfare to the tune of over $13 trillion in subsidies and guarantees.(By the way, the yearly budget outlays for means tested programs for low income citizens is about $350 billion per year. So Wall Street’s welfare is about 37 times as large as welfare for poor.)
So if narrowing the income/wealth gap isn’t socialism, what is it? It’s the America that thrived in the 1950s and 1960s. It’s the America that created a middle-class and vowed never to let the financial gamblers return us to another depression. It’s an America that put its people to work and built an infrastructure that was the envy of the world.
But....but.......in the 'good ol' scenario,' the 29 Million have the 'opportunity' to be one of the 400, don'tcha know...?

(sarcasm alert).

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#830881 Dec 30, 2012
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Carol is anything but an ant.
Try telling her that - her posts indicate she's not just 'an' ant, but 'the' ant.

Carryin' the 'ole world on 'er shoulders, don'tcha know....
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#830883 Dec 30, 2012
Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on Economy

Bruce Bartlett

Republicans are heavily invested in permanently extending the tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration, all of which expire at the end of this year exactly as the legislation was written in the first place. To hear Republicans, one would think that the Bush tax cuts were the most powerful stimulus to growth ever enacted and only a madman would even think of allowing any of them to expire.

The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. Their main effect was simply to reduce the government’s revenue, thereby increasing the budget deficit, which all Republicans claim to abhor.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2010/09...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#830884 Dec 30, 2012
RED BANNER OVER BUMFK wrote:
Tenzing's day-uh-dee sent him to a pra-vit school, but he still says "y'all" to try and look like one of the good ole' boy-uhs.
Hahahahahahahaha!(For somebody who starts up 5 companies a month(?), he sure is on da treads a lot .... Was that you Ten-zing, or was that somebody else?)
I wouldn't respond to such tripe but you got what I said completely wrong.

No private school for me, my kids? Yes.

The involvement with 5 businesses was since Obama was elected and I specified "the first time" and that involvement has been in varying degrees from helping my daughter get her business off the ground to starting a 501(c)3 and an LLC to manage the non-profit's assets to consulting for another startup in exchange for shares.

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) 6 min Dr Guru 194,548
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr ritedownthemiddle 54,358
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... 3 hr VeganTiger 5
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 8 hr Mister Tonka 100,298
Ask Amy July 31 8 hr Julie 6
abby7-31-15 11 hr mrs gladys kravitz 5
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 13 hr Mark 52,069
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages