Speak Out: "Yes We Can !!"

Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 12:11 PM:

Rick,

Are you saying "yes, we can", or are you saying, "no, you can't"? Have you been supporting the President or have you been one of those who are saying, I told you he couldn't , I am gonna block and resist everything. I didn't win, and by golly, noone else is going to win either!"

Replies (45)

  • FYI; The Dow Jones is up 2981 points since inauguration day on Jan 20, 2009. The rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer. That equates to a 27.3% increase in the Dow. That's not a bad return as I invested heavily the day Obama took office. It may not last, but at the first sign of a retreat, I'm outa there. By the way, I don't hear any conservatives(i.e. right wingers,tea partiers) complaining about the market, do you?

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 12:18 PM
  • All the resisting and blocking comes from within the democrat party. The republicans don't have the votes to block anything, but if Obama doesn't get his way democrats blame the party of "no".

    It seems that many of democrats running for reelection are thnking yes they can but saying something else.

    I once thought Obama would move toward the center regarding taxes, but I am beginning to think he thinks to highly of himself for that. Instead He will just put more effort in fooling folks into thinking he is doing great things for the middle class against those evil rich people.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 12:43 PM
  • Why weren't jobs created during Bush's term if the argument now is not giving tax breaks to the rich will cost jobs. Jobs were not created when the rich were getting tax breaks and they won't be created if the tax cuts are extended. Plain and simple. I don't have anything against rich people, God bless them, but don't give me that song and dance that tax breaks will create jobs.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 12:50 PM
  • If higher taxes as in letting the tax cuts expire was a good argument for creating jobs, why did congress go home without facing that issue before the election?

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 12:57 PM
  • Not sure what Rick was saying, but I think it has turned into NO WE CANNOT.... and it is all Bush's fault.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 12:58 PM
  • Old John, Please explain what you mean when you say , "Obama thinks too highly of himself"

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 1:21 PM
  • The rich get richer because they work harder. The poor get poorer because they are lazy slackers that thought skipping class wouldn't matter. When we pay less in taxes, the more money we have to spend on goods and services we need and want. The higher demand for those goods and services creates the jobs for the producers. Rick is saying we do not hear the battle cry of the Democrats since they have achieved their goal of only getting elected. They get rich off the backs of the working class by taking our taxes for their self proclaimed high government pay and benefits for no actual work. Government workers now have a higher rate of pay than the private sector. There are now more government workers in the government than in the private sector. If you cannot see the problem with this, you must have skipped class and you arm must be tiring from holding your hand out since you actually believed campaign promises, again.

    -- Posted by jadip4me on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 1:21 PM
  • I once thought Obama would move toward the center regarding taxes, but I am beginning to think he thinks to highly of himself for that. Instead He will just put more effort in fooling folks into thinking he is doing great things for the middle class against those evil rich people.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 12:43 PM

    President Obama is providing continued tax benefits for the middle class, which is struggling in the current economy. The wealthiest group has not struggled one bit over the past years, and obviously that's their privilege.

    As for continuing tax rates, for the top income brackets, the country cannot afford to keep going into debt to give them money. Stop and think for a minute about why the Bush administration put a cut off date on tax rates. It was because continuing them would plunge the nation deeper into the red.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 1:24 PM
  • Reasoning,

    Maybe you could explain for us what you meant when you said " Have you been supporting the President or have you been one of those who are saying, I told you he couldn't , I am gonna block and resist everything."

    Some of us have a hard time understanding how you can block and resist a President with a bullet proof majority as he has had most of his term so far.

    I think it is pretty apparent to most that he never had a plan, except to pass a socialist agenda which is not helping us.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 1:30 PM
  • As for continuing tax rates, for the top income brackets, the country cannot afford to keep going into debt to give them money. Stop and think for a minute about why the Bush administration put a cut off date on tax rates. It was because continuing them would plunge the nation deeper into the red.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 1:24 PM

    I take issue with the statement "to give them money", when it was their money to begin with. Also, I believe every special tax break like this has a cutoff date and even if it doesn't, I don't think there has ever, ever been an extended time when tax rates haven't changed. Someone always has a better idea. Dems-raise, Reps-lower. How bout we keep it the same as now and see what happens. No uncertainty that way.

    -- Posted by Knoblickian on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 7:30 PM
  • Stalled 81 (who do we blame here?)- posted by Theorist

    How the heck can you blame the Republicans for that when the Democrats have the majority in both the house and senate. If the democrats wanted those promises then they would have passed it just like they passed Obamacare.

    BTW- Obama's interview in Rolling Stone Magazine has him boasting that he has already accomplished 70% of what he had set out to do. And the next thing he plans on accomplishing is- drum roll,,,,,,, hold onto your hats,,,,, yep, you guessed it- Cap N Trade.

    If he has accomplished 70% of his mission, why oh why aren't people happy with him?

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:15 PM
  • jadip4me- very good post!

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:15 PM
  • "Yes, we can." was the motto.

    "But you shouldn't." is my reply. Just because you can doesn't mean you ought. Yes, you can dupe the fools into electing you. Yes you can dupe the people into supporting theft in the name of compassion. That doesn't make it right.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:17 PM
  • Theorist- you said "(who do we blame here?)"

    Then you said "Who said anything about blaming the Republicans"

    ok then, WHO DO YOU BLAME????

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:32 PM
  • Cat got your tongue? Still no answer to my question? Who do YOU blame?

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:44 PM
  • As for continuing tax rates, for the top income brackets, the country cannot afford to keep going into debt to give them money. Stop and think for a minute about why the Bush administration put a cut off date on tax rates. It was because continuing them would plunge the nation deeper into the red.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 1:24 PM

    Common,

    As someone else already pointed out. You re not giving people money when it is their own money we are talking about. That kind of double talk is what makes this country great! Right?

    Every hear of.... Quit spending like a drunken sailer? Maybe cut off one of the pensions for the double dippers in this country. How does that idea grab you?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:47 PM
  • I believe in spite of all of the insanity in government, we as a country will probably survive it.

    An ocassional fool elected to our top office we can overcome... it is the fools that continue to elect these types that worries me.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:51 PM
  • Rick

    Looks like this years crop is a good one. :)

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 9:04 PM
  • Reasoning, I meant merely what I said, but in other words the president is either totally convinced and believes he is right or is just too much above anyone to consider he is not.

    Common, So you figure Bush wanted the tax cuts to expire? Think again.

    Theorist, Where do you come up with all this statistical crap? Is this kinda like Rush saying he is right 99.8% of the time or does this come from "proffessional web sites" we peons can't understand? :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 12:12 AM
  • "Common, So you figure Bush wanted the tax cuts to expire? Think again."

    Of course he did not want the tax cuts to expire, but he had to let them. The reason for the cut off date was that the country would go further into debt if he did not. What part of debt reduction is it that you do not underestand? One would think that conservatives in particular would applaud a sensible fiscal decision.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 5:22 AM
  • Theorist, let me explain this slowly so you can understand.

    Then I asked you, and you had no answer.

    For someone who thinks she is intelligent, you had no answer, and you sure did hate having your own question thrown back at you.

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 9:25 AM
  • Common, the part I don't understand is the part where spending reduces debt.

    But back to my point, the expiration of the tax cuts was not included for any other reason than to get the bill to pass. A sensible decision would be to cut spending.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 11:09 AM
  • commonsensematters wrote:

    "Of course he did not want the tax cuts to expire, but he had to let them. The reason for the cut off date was that the country would go further into debt if he did not."

    The reason for the cutoff date was that it was the only way to get the votes for passage. It is that simple. Some would only go along with the cuts if they saw them as a temporary measure to help improve the economy post 9/11/01. There were a sufficient number of those that the bill would not pass without them. Their reasons for wanting the cutoff varied widely.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 11:14 AM
  • Everyone is looking for someone to blame for their lot in life. We get the government we deserve from the people that were chosen to do the job. People voted and keep voting for the same people that keep creating the problems we all have to endure. Those are mostly uneducated, unmotivated people that want governement to take care of them. Yet, we still look for someone to blame. In November, we can begin the transition back to the great country it is destined to be. Vote for the people that will work to take government out of our lives, repeal the health care debacle and reduce governments dependancy for revenue for projects that are not dedicated to help the majority but the minority. Vote for the people that really believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they were written, not how they are interpreted to suit their agenda. Or you can keep whining and looking for someone ELSE to blame.

    -- Posted by jadip4me on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 12:08 PM
  • Yeah, and once we vote these people in... stay on the case. Because it may be a little harder to get them to do what they promised than it was to vote them into office.

    jadip4me, I am presuming that your name means 'Just another day in paradise for me'. How close am I? I like it, that was one of the phrases one of my longtime employees used when I was in business.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 12:16 PM
  • Old john, I am sure the President believes he is right. But why do you think he thinks he is above everyone else?

    Just wondered because you seem so certain, and I just don't see that.

    -- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 1:33 PM
  • "What's more, in the new-Obama-open-secrets-Washington, voters felt like they weren't even part of the conversation. Meetings were held behind closed doors. Democrats battled each other. Republicans complained they were left out." posted by Rick

    Rick, I had to reread that, thought you were talking about our Cape county commissioners for a minute. (lol hee hee)

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 5:15 PM
  • The current economic situation we have been in for nearly three years now is a accumilation of debt piling up for the past 40 years. To blame this on President Obama is not right or furthermore to blame it on any of our past Presidents during the past forty years. The invoice for this 40 year pile up of debt created by all of us and not just by our elected officials came due on September 15, 2008 and we could not pay for it. I'm so sick and tired of some that are constantly blaming some one else for this serious economic situation. So many americans want a "quick fix" to this mess well I can tell you right now it is not going to happen I don't care who we put in office, it is going to take at least four to five years before real recovery starts, but if all of us keep blaming one another and pointing fingers we might not get out of it then. We have sit here in this great country of ours for the past 40 years and borrowed and spent many had to have the fancy homes, vehicles, fancy clothes, cruises so on so forth. To blame the President is not fair, all of the Presidents have really done there best in an attempt to keep this country from falling in to a deep recession and or a great depression. As far as deficts we are always going to have that regardless, because of the life style we all demand in this country.No matter what party we put in as majority control it is going to take time to get out of this accumilated 40 year mess.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 6:34 PM
  • "The reason for the cutoff date was that it was the only way to get the votes for passage. It is that simple."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 11:14 AM

    Agree, it is that simple. Congressmen that recognized that the tax cuts would unacceptably increase the debt after ten years would not vote for it unless it was cut off by 2011. That made sense.

    Remember also that President Bush justified the tax cut based on the surplus from the Clinton presidency, i.e. returning the taxpayers money. Unfortunately he did not see fit to increase taxes to pay for an unneeded war. Seems like the fiscal conservatives had no problem with increasing the national debt at that time. Could be because it was republican debt, or as Vice-President Cheney said, deficits don't matter.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 9:51 PM
  • commonsensematters,

    I've explained several times on this post about the significance of rising GDP vs. rising debt, and also the distinction between public debt and intergovernmental holdings. If you haven't paid attention before now, there's little since in repeating it. However, if you've looked at the latest figures on debt, you'll see that talking about President Bush's debt is pretty well moot.

    Mr. Obama, in a year-and-a-half, has increased the debt $3.8 trillion, compared to to $4.6 trillion in eight years by President Bush. I would say harping about President Bush's debt sour grapes, given your silence on the current runaway spending.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 10:08 PM
  • As I thought, Shapley is by far the most intelligent one on here.

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 10:13 PM
  • Rick: The health care bill will be brought back to the table by congress and amended. The republicans have over 100 admendments in this bill when it passed. Health care reform is needed badly in this country but it must be a bill that both sides can live with. If the bill remains in it's current form (which it will not) the majority of it does not kick in until the year 2014. The bill is at least a start something we have not had at all, but it will be amended by both sides over the next few years by congress.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 5:25 AM
  • "Mr. Obama, in a year-and-a-half, has increased the debt $3.8 trillion, compared to to $4.6 trillion in eight years by President Bush. I would say harping about President Bush's debt sour grapes, given your silence on the current runaway spending."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 10:08 PM

    No one is in favor of "runaway" spending, however, it had to be done to prevent further deterioration and downward spiraling of the economy. And at least the money was spent in our country. While proving that things could have been worse is problematical, there are numerous economists and politicians that agree that this was the case. Obviously there are some that vehemently disagree and claim the spending was unnecessary, but they can't prove their case either.

    Regardless, it is a fact that there was no depression, and the economy is gradually improving, so something worked. Now is the time to start curtailing the "runaway" debt, and step one is to is leave the Bush tax rate cut off date in place for the most affluent Americans.

    And I can see the "responses" already.... Affluence envy! Affluence envy! Etc....

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 5:48 AM
  • ", however, it had to be done to prevent further deterioration and downward spiraling of the economy"- Obama talking point. Totally untrue.

    "And at least the money was spent in our country"

    well, aren't you naive. Let me prove you wrong.

    450 million in stimulus funding for a massive wind farm that would be powered by turbines built in China.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030302764....

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/stimulus-money-overseas_n_483593.html

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/82-million-of-first-stimulus-went-overseas-200...

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 7:36 AM
  • commonsensematters wrote:

    "affluence envy..."

    Nope. You've highlighted your hypocracy well enough, I have no need to address it further.

    Your position is obvious: Democrat spending is 'necessary', Republican spending is 'wasteful'. Never mind that nearly $4 trillion in spending has apparently spurred only $200 billion in GDP growth.

    Now for something completely different:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39548132/ns/health-the_new_york_times

    It seems Mr. Obama has decided to exempt big business from the provisions of Obamacare...

    Apparently some of these 'necessary' reforms aren't necessarily necessary for all of us.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 8:01 AM
  • "The waivers have been issued in the last several weeks as part of a broader strategic effort to stave off threats by some health insurers to abandon markets, drop out of the business altogether or refuse to sell certain policies."

    Doesn't seem unusual to provide some leeway during a transition period. It is also not uncommon for companies effected by new rules to fight in whatever manner possible to maintain the status quo.

    What will probably happen is that some companies will go out of the insurance business, and others will come in to pick up the slack. I believe that's called capitalism.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 1:52 PM
  • Laws are supposed to be uniformly applied. Waiving the provisions for some but not for others creates an uneven playing field. That's not capitalism in the pure sense, it is sometimes called 'crony capitalism', but it usually just called 'corruption'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 1:59 PM
  • That's not capitalism in the pure sense, it is sometimes called 'crony capitalism', but it usually just called 'corruption'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 1:59 PM

    Hmmmm! Corruption in the Obama administration.... surely not.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 2:44 PM
  • -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 6:51 PM
  • "Your position is obvious: Democrat spending is 'necessary', Republican spending is 'wasteful'."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 7, 2010, at 8:01 AM

    The apparent oversimplification is somewhat below your usual level. It is definitely not a straightforward case of "democrat -- good and republican -- bad."

    What I said was the spending on the Iraq war was unnecessary (and not paid for by a requisite tax increase) and the spending to counter the deepening recession was necessary to prevent a depression (which did not happen) and will be partially paid for by letting the most expensive of the Bush tax cuts expire.

    As for the complaints by conservatives that all tax cuts should be extended, keep in mind that the top 20% of Americans already control 85% of the wealth. I am, fortunately, part of the 20% but do not feel a compelling urge to go after the remaining 15%. Seemingly, some must feel that 85% is not enough and desperately need to demand a 3 or 4% tax cut.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 8, 2010, at 9:27 AM
  • I don't think they're demanding a tax cut, they're just asking not to have their taxes increased.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 8, 2010, at 9:45 AM
  • "Health care reform is needed badly in this country but it must be a bill that both sides can live with."

    Swampeast I totally agree with the first part but the second part is off base. It must be a bill that the citizens can live with. It wont effect the politicians healthcare. I do hope it effects their chance for re-election.

    -- Posted by Mowrangler on Fri, Oct 8, 2010, at 9:52 AM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "How much of that public debt you mentioned was part of the FY '09 budget, which was signed by Bush?"

    According to the Treasury's Debt to the Penny website, Total debt on September 30, 2009, the end of FY 2009, stood at $11.9 trillion, an increase of $1.28 trillion from the day Mr. Obama took office.

    However, that debt includes the second half of the $700 billion stimulus, which was not in the FY 2009 budget, and which President Bush did not spend, leaving it to his successor to do. (Mr. Obama could have opted not to spend it.) There was also an $787 billion dollar stimulus bill passed by the Congress which was not in the FY 2009 budget. There was also a $94.2 billion appropriation for the war in Iraq that was signed in May 2009, and was not included in the FY 2009 budget.

    As I see it, that puts total spending over and above the budget at $350 + $787 + $94.2 billion, or $1.23 trillion dollars spent but not included in the budget President Bush submitted and/or the appropriations he signed. Now, if I do my math correctly, that makes President Bush responsible for $1.28 - $1.23 or about $.05 trillion ($50 billion) dollars of that debt.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 8, 2010, at 3:02 PM
  • But, I'll give you that only about $160 billion of the stimulus had been spent as of September 2009. That would change those figures, as of September 2009, to less than $500 billion which resulted from the spending bills that were signed by President Bush.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 8, 2010, at 3:06 PM
  • Oops! I hit the wrong key on my calculator. The total would be $350 + $160 + $94.2, taken from $1'280 yields about $676 billion signed for by President Bush (buy passed by a Congress of which Mr. Obama was a member...)

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 8, 2010, at 3:10 PM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration: