Thread: What do you think will happen if Obama is NOT 'elected' for the next four years?

Originally Posted by NavyIC1

Well, the World respects the U.S. already and about half of us are already proud of their country.

you wouldn't know it from the posters that gloat about our demise...while living off our largesse.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Actually just 11 years ago the biggest budget problem we had was whether the surpluses would be too big.

The problems are readily fixable. We just need representatives and leaders who will compromise to get it done.

I would say we need representatives that legislate on what is good for the COUNTRY instead of what is good for their party or their state or THIS subgroup of the population or THAT group of 'special needs' constituants.

Originally Posted by injest

and yet you want to continue the nanny state that has ruled this country for the last thirty years...

if there is no more money as you claim, please explain how we are supposed to fund this continuation? and please...don't haul out the ol "well the rich people need to pay more"; we could confiscate every DIME of the rich and not pay off our debt, let alone fund this joyride you Democrats have us on.

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Democrats keep going back to the same well over and over, entitlements! more entitlements!

it hasn't worked, and it won't.

You are correct. Increasing the taxes on the rich will not really help. This is especially true if spending continues out of control. What we need is true tax reform. This means finding a way to get everyone to pay taxes. However, the amount paid should be increased the more you make due to the fact that 20% tax on the poor makes more of an impact than 20% on millionaires.

With that said, The Republicans also keep doing the same thing over and over. "Trickle Down" "Trickle Down"! The Republicans are correct in saying that decreasing taxes on the wealthy CAN bring in more money, but there is a threshold where that stops being true. If we had a 60% tax on the highest income bracket then we could lower taxes and and bring in more income. However, when taxes for the top bracket hits around 40% (just a number, "Not meant to be taken as a factual statement") you actualy start to lose income to the government. Supply-side economics does not work. We had decades of proof with Republican Presidents that show that money does not trickle down. If you want a strong economy, it is not the rich that need breaks, but the middle to upper-middle Class.

Originally Posted by NavyIC1

Well, GOP President will not be able to do anything without both houses of congress. The reality is that Congresses aproval rating is lower than it has ever been. People are not happy with the last class of reps and are not going to overwhelmingly hand the patter to the GOP.

This means that if the GOP wins the Presidency, they will be doing it without both houses. That means that the Democrats will start playing the same little B.S. games the GOP is playing. Both parties will always put party politics over the needs of the country.

I am a Democrat that believes that we need DO need to change things up. We can't keep spending and spending the way we have. We need to increase the retirement age for help SS, overhaul Medicare and Medicaid and cut spending until it hurts. However, we also need to cut military spending just as much. We need to stop oil subsidies to companies that already make record profits every quarter. However, I can't see any of the current GOP canidates willing to really make any real changes. Electing Mitt is like electing President Obama for a second term, so you might as well elect the real thing not some caucasian version.

Mitt would cut taxes. Obama would raise them. You can do the math on the effect on the deficits.

Originally Posted by injest

and yet you want to continue the nanny state that has ruled this country for the last thirty years...

if there is no more money as you claim, please explain how we are supposed to fund this continuation? and please...don't haul out the ol "well the rich people need to pay more"; we could confiscate every DIME of the rich and not pay off our debt, let alone fund this joyride you Democrats have us on.

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Democrats keep going back to the same well over and over, entitlements! more entitlements!

it hasn't worked, and it won't.

I have no idea how to resolve your problems. Neither do your successive governments.

Originally Posted by Beevee

I have no idea how to resolve your problems. Neither do your successive governments.

so your only purpose here is to tell us how we are screwed? ok, we got your opinion, it means SOOOO much to us...

in the meantime, don't worry, we'll continue to send you our support...since you can't/never could support yourself...

Originally Posted by injest

I would say we need representatives that legislate on what is good for the COUNTRY instead of what is good for their party or their state or THIS subgroup of the population or THAT group of 'special needs' constituants.

The problem is, when you have rigid, uncompromising views and positions on what is good for the COUNTRY, nothing gets done.

Which is bad for the COUNTRY.

And why we have $15 trillion in debt.

We need leaders who will COMPROMISE to get it done. For the good of the COUNTRY.

Originally Posted by NavyIC1

You are correct. Increasing the taxes on the rich will not really help.

If tax revenue collections were just the same proportion of GDP as they were in 2000 befroe the Bush and Stimulus tax cuts, revenues in 2010 would have been about $800 billion greater.

That would really help.

Early on, I thought that Obama would likely not be elected for a second term.

I no longer think that way, unfortunately.


*sigh*

Originally Posted by injest

... we could confiscate every DIME of the rich and not pay off our debt, let alone fund this joyride you Democrats have us on.

False conservative propaganda we've seen regurgitated on this board countless times.

It would not pay off our debt, but it would eliminate the deficits and begin reducing the debt.

According to the most recent data from the CBO, just the richest 1% alone take 18% of gross income (it may be higher now). Gross national income is $13 trillion. 18% of $13 trillion is 2.34 trillion in income the top 1% take.

They currently pay an effective tax rate of about 21%. 21% of $2.34 billion is $491 billion they pay in total federal taxes. That leaves $1.85 trillion left in untaxed income, more than enough to cover the federal deficit.

Just from the top 1% alone. Expand it to the top 10% and its easy.

Without cutting spending a dime, which they do need to trim.

Source data: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8885, historical budget data.

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Democrats keep going back to the same well over and over, entitlements! more entitlements!

it hasn't worked, and it won't.

And we've seen twice now the disaster caused by tax cuts resulting in exploding deficits without any improvement ine the economy.

It hasn't worked, and it won't

So why are Republicans going back to the same old tax cut well over and over?

The answer is obvious, isn't it?