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 ... Read more

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#813425 Nov 29, 2012
GhostofRaygun wrote:
<quoted text>Actually Democrats are more of a Socialist. The Republicans would be more Marxist or Communist. Communist has the Peasant and Elite class. Socialist are more even spread across their economy.
.
P.S. Heard this today. Great question for you Repubs. Reagan LOWER the tax rate on everyone. However his rate for the top was 50% not the 35% it is now and Capital Gains were 25% not the 15% they are now. SOOOOO was Reagan MORE of a wealth redistribute than Obama?
There were a lot more deductions back then.

Since: Feb 10

ny ny

#813426 Nov 29, 2012
Obama Victory Margin Grows

As the votes keep coming in, President Obama's national lead over Mitt Romney is now 50.9% to 47.4%.

First Read: "That's a bigger (and more decisive) margin that Bush's victory over John Kerry in 2004 (which was Bush 50.7% and Kerry 48.2%). What's more, the president's lead has grown to close to 3 points in Ohio, 4 points in Virginia and 6 points in Colorado. One doesn't win Colorado by six points without winning swing voters; there isn't a big-enough Democratic base to make that argument."

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#813427 Nov 29, 2012
ra_con_teur wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain to us Kirchov's laws Mr speaker man!
Kirchhoff's equations are a pain.
Unless you're designing, calculating the voltages and currents of circuit branches and components is fairly esoteric. I'd rather know how and why anybody with ears thinks a marginally damped 30 HZ FS driver sounds good - either in the car or a block away.

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813428 Nov 29, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Medicare Part D is funded, at least in part, by premiums paid every month by those who are covered.
The CBO analysis has the total cost rom 2004 - 2014 as 500 billion less 131 billion oin premiums.

Maybe to you right whiners, that's funding a bill.

The CBO said it would add 400 billion to the debt when the Republicans voted yes yes yes.

I guess that's being fiscally responsible?

In 2011, a 60 billion deficit between the federal & states.
SoundsOnTheBooth eels

East Bernstadt, KY

#813429 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, according to you, if Chris Christie lied about the help he was getting or if he refused the federal help & allowed his people to suffer, Romney would have won?
All that would happen is to provide more proof how the Republicans politicize a crisis in order to try to gain votes. Obama would cite the aid given pr cite how Christie refused help to cost Republicans even more votes by proving just how pathetic they were.
Christie did the right thing. Show that politics really don't matter. People like that. But they way the Republicans had a fit cost them votes. If they would have backed Christie, they would have gained votes.
Ssssssssssssssssssssssllllllll uuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrppp.

You get an A this morning for a hopey/changey Duh a Vey lol.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#813430 Nov 29, 2012
carol wrote:
Two words: Wealth tax.
The government now wants to tax a percentage of the wealthiest's total assests.
Couldn't that be considered:
Stealing?
Seizure of private property?
Unconstitutional?
A bureaucratic nightmare?
All of the above?
It's in the making regardless.
Better keep an eye on your 401*k)s and IRAs. Next they will federalize (confiscate) them to protect you from greedy Wall Street.

Morning Carol.
Lily Boca Raton Fl

Boca Raton, FL

#813431 Nov 29, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask an obammerphone entitleMENTALly disabled hillbilly!
They're every where these days---You'll be able to recognize one by the ozombieTic type chant of ...but...but..wahwahwah we po'...gimme, gimmme, gimme... and don't ferget duh fwee birf contwol!!!
So, do you tie the bacon on strings and hang it from the ceiling? Like fly paper? Make yer kids jump Fer bacon?

Since: Feb 10

ny ny

#813432 Nov 29, 2012
The Least Influential Person of the Year....
GQ says it's Mitt Romney.

"Was anyone inspired by Mitt Romney? Did anyone vote enthusiastically for Mitt Romney? Of course not. Voting for Romney is like hooking up with the last single person at the bar at 4 a.m. The only successful thing he did this year was embody every black stand-up comedian's impression of a white person. Thank God the election's over."

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/celebrities/2...

Since: Feb 10

ny ny

#813433 Nov 29, 2012
MARKET PULSE

Nov. 29, 2012, 8:31 a.m. EST
U.S. Q3 GDP revised up to 2.7% from 2.0%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-q3-gdp-re...
OBAMA the GENIUS

Lillington, NC

#813434 Nov 29, 2012
yepperz wrote:
Obama Victory Margin Grows
As the votes keep coming in, President Obama's national lead over Mitt Romney is now 50.9% to 47.4%.
First Read: "That's a bigger (and more decisive) margin that Bush's victory over John Kerry in 2004 (which was Bush 50.7% and Kerry 48.2%). What's more, the president's lead has grown to close to 3 points in Ohio, 4 points in Virginia and 6 points in Colorado. One doesn't win Colorado by six points without winning swing voters; there isn't a big-enough Democratic base to make that argument."
With the Republican unemployment rate: 8%?

Couldn't change the pres?

Love it! Obama beat the Republicans so good!

Just look at all the crazy on here everyday: Republicans in denial.

We got this! We will just tax carol right out of her girdle!!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813435 Nov 29, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave is wrong again, as usual.
"Redlining" is the practice of banks declining mortgages in certain neighborhoods because of high risk. The practice is not race-specific, although many redlined neighborhoods are predominantly minority.
When the government denies banks the right to deny mortgages in high-risk areas, high default rates will occur.
"high risk areas" = black neighborhoods.

But that's not racist.

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813436 Nov 29, 2012
sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand completely, forcefully take money from the actual producers and give it to fleabagging loafers like you.
See, I knew you were an idiot.

Since: Feb 10

ny ny

#813438 Nov 29, 2012
OBAMA the GENIUS wrote:
<quoted text>
With the Republican unemployment rate: 8%?
Couldn't change the pres?
Love it! Obama beat the Republicans so good!
Just look at all the crazy on here everyday: Republicans in denial.
We got this! We will just tax carol right out of her girdle!!
LOL!
LOL!
LOL!
It's all Chris Christie's fault.........

A new Quinnipiac poll in New Jersey finds voters overwhelmingly favor Gov. Chris Christie (R) for re-election, 67% to 25%.
ra_con_teur

Oklahoma City, OK

#813439 Nov 29, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
no. i do math in my head. the Chinese way.
You do scientific notation without an aide?

Lots of digits to handle....
Jane Says

New York, NY

#813440 Nov 29, 2012
yepperz wrote:
Obama Victory Margin Grows
As the votes keep coming in, President Obama's national lead over Mitt Romney is now 50.9% to 47.4%.
First Read: "That's a bigger (and more decisive) margin that Bush's victory over John Kerry in 2004 (which was Bush 50.7% and Kerry 48.2%). What's more, the president's lead has grown to close to 3 points in Ohio, 4 points in Virginia and 6 points in Colorado. One doesn't win Colorado by six points without winning swing voters; there isn't a big-enough Democratic base to make that argument."
those percentages correlate to the number of Americans who watched Honey Boo Boo rather than the debates. Honey Boo Boo did endorse Obama, probably since they are both popular cultural icons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/hone...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813441 Nov 29, 2012
Rand Paul’s Sympathy for the (Rich) Devil

I haven’t written lately about fiscal-cliff negotiations, as, frankly, not much has happened in the last two weeks, other than a slow trickle of Republicans seeking daylight between themselves and Grover Norquist. For the most part, Congressional Democrats are digging in on entitlements, while Republicans are holding firm against increasing rates on anyone, including those making $250,000 or more a year.

On CNN last night, Sen. Rand Paul, who is among the few GOPers willing to accept cuts in military spending as part of a fiscal-cliff compromise, was admirably honest about why Republicans refuse to de-link tax rates for the wealthy from those for everyone else:

Once you separate them out, there’s not a lot of sympathy among the public for rich people. They say,‘Oh, let’s get those rich people.’ But the public often doesn’t realize … the top one-percent pay almost half of all the income tax.

To be fair, Paul is making a substantive argument: the rich already are “soaked” enough, and if Obama thought it was a bad idea to raise taxes in 2010, why does he think it’s a swell idea now? But his initial reasoning is more nakedly political: he’s admitting that a stand-alone vote on preserving the Bush tax rates for the wealthy would make Republicans look really, really bad.

Paul is right about this — and doubtless Obama knows it. The knife is in. And he’s beginning to twist it:

Right now, as we speak, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. Everybody’s. And that means that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up by a single dime.…

Even the wealthiest Americans would still get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. So it’s not like folks who make more than $250,000 aren’t getting a tax break, too. They are getting a tax break on the first $250,000 just like everybody else. Families and small businesses would, therefore, be able to enjoy some peace of mind heading into Christmas and heading into the new year.

It’s far from clear whether Obama’s appetite for brinkmanship is big enough to go over the cliff. It seems to me he would prefer a second term that’s defined by steady economic growth and job creation as opposed to a self-inflicted double-dip recession. But to paraphrase the freshly reelected President Bush in 2004, Obama has leverage, and at least for now, he intends to wield it.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/rand-p...

Since: Feb 10

ny ny

#813444 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>those percentages correlate to the number of Americans who watched Honey Boo Boo rather than the debates. Honey Boo Boo did endorse Obama, probably since they are both popular cultural icons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/hone...
Sure sourpuss, whatever you say. Why don't you go back to posting racist remarks under fake id's? It's more your style.

The vote count still isn't 100 percent final President Obama could have lost every state he won by less than 5.4 percentage points -- Florida, Ohio, and Virginia -- and he still would've won the electoral vote 272 to 266.

Obama hit 48% in every battleground state while Mitt Romney managed it in just two of them.

Keep going, you’re doing great!

“I know where you are,”

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#813446 Nov 29, 2012
Sniveling is not a pre-existing condition.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#813449 Nov 29, 2012
Slim wrote:
<quoted text>You racist old man.
would you prefer a hypocrite old man, like Warren Buffet who now claims raising the taxes on the rich won't deter them from making investments?

Taxes matter -- to Buffett.

Harvard's Economic Department chairman, Greg Mankiw, writes that "Mr. Buffett never mentions doing anything to eliminate the tax-avoidance strategies that he uses most aggressively. In particular:

"1. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, never pays a dividend but instead retains all earnings. So the return on this investment is entirely in the form of capital gains. By not paying dividends, he saves his investors (including himself) from having to immediately pay income tax on this income.

"2. Mr. Buffett is a long-term investor, so he rarely sells and realizes a capital gain. His unrealized capital gains are untaxed.

"3. He is giving away much of his wealth to charity. He gets a deduction at the full market value of the stock he donates, most of which is unrealized (and therefore untaxed) capital gains.

"4. When he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up basis. The income tax will never collect any revenue from the substantial unrealized capital gains he has been accumulating.

"To be sure, there are pros and cons of changing the provisions of the tax code of which Mr. Buffett takes advantage. Tax policy always involves difficult tradeoffs. But it seems odd to me that whenever Mr. Buffett talks about taxing the rich more, the 'loopholes' that he uses never seem to enter into the conversation."

Guess who else thinks Buffett should pay more in taxes: the IRS.

Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has been fighting the IRS over the $1 billion in taxes the government claims it is owed, dating as far back as 2002. Last year, one of Berkshire Hathaway's companies, NetJets, sued the IRS, demanding that the feds return $642.7 million in already paid taxes. And this year, the IRS sued NetJets, claiming it is owed $366.3 million in unpaid taxes.

Meanwhile, scientists at the National Institutes of Health are working feverishly to develop a cure, vaccine or treatment for this disease -- that appears to afflict guilty/super-wealthy liberals -- known in medical circles as "Buffettitis." It's early, and one risks being premature. But NIH just may have produced a workable solution: "Mr. Buffett, whip out your checkbook, and cut the U.S. Treasury a check. Given the state of the economy, let's hope it doesn't bounce."

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#813451 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>would you prefer a hypocrite old man, like Warren Buffet who now claims raising the taxes on the rich won't deter them from making investments?
Taxes matter -- to Buffett.
Harvard's Economic Department chairman, Greg Mankiw, writes that "Mr. Buffett never mentions doing anything to eliminate the tax-avoidance strategies that he uses most aggressively. In particular:
"1. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, never pays a dividend but instead retains all earnings. So the return on this investment is entirely in the form of capital gains. By not paying dividends, he saves his investors (including himself) from having to immediately pay income tax on this income.
"2. Mr. Buffett is a long-term investor, so he rarely sells and realizes a capital gain. His unrealized capital gains are untaxed.
"3. He is giving away much of his wealth to charity. He gets a deduction at the full market value of the stock he donates, most of which is unrealized (and therefore untaxed) capital gains.
"4. When he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up basis. The income tax will never collect any revenue from the substantial unrealized capital gains he has been accumulating.
"To be sure, there are pros and cons of changing the provisions of the tax code of which Mr. Buffett takes advantage. Tax policy always involves difficult tradeoffs. But it seems odd to me that whenever Mr. Buffett talks about taxing the rich more, the 'loopholes' that he uses never seem to enter into the conversation."
Guess who else thinks Buffett should pay more in taxes: the IRS.
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has been fighting the IRS over the $1 billion in taxes the government claims it is owed, dating as far back as 2002. Last year, one of Berkshire Hathaway's companies, NetJets, sued the IRS, demanding that the feds return $642.7 million in already paid taxes. And this year, the IRS sued NetJets, claiming it is owed $366.3 million in unpaid taxes.
Meanwhile, scientists at the National Institutes of Health are working feverishly to develop a cure, vaccine or treatment for this disease -- that appears to afflict guilty/super-wealthy liberals -- known in medical circles as "Buffettitis." It's early, and one risks being premature. But NIH just may have produced a workable solution: "Mr. Buffett, whip out your checkbook, and cut the U.S. Treasury a check. Given the state of the economy, let's hope it doesn't bounce."
Buffet could give a healthy rip what happens...

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.

Catasauqua Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 1 hr WelbyMD 54,566
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr scirocco 71,697
Police, fire crews respond to threats at Bethle... 4 hr silly rabbit 1
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 hr Ali Baba 309,187
News Test Drive: 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid Review (Jan '09) 14 hr BK Flozell 4
Unidentified Allentown man was murdered Wed silly rabbit 1
Top 10 WORST companies to work for in the Lehig... (May '08) Wed backtrack in PA 46
Catasauqua Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Catasauqua People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]