For different reasons....But as far as working through the recession, the last 4 years have been a disaster...And how we got here was a disaster..

But we could go back really far including the disaster of Vietnam, But I was sticking to the Debt and Taxes..

And the quote was meant that if we agree that the last 4 have been a disaster, keeping the same Leaders will not change anything...And I don't expect them to change...So I won't be surprised when they don't.:cheers:

It is all about the lesser of two evils....I have my view on who is worse, but that doesn't mean that the other side is great.

If anyone here considers being referred to as a Fox News viewer as an insult, perhaps there is hope for the right in this country. Otherwise, I'd like to be shown where I insulted anyone in this thread.

Otherwise, you boys keep working on your reach around technique, you're obviously enjoying yourselves. (For those keeping score at home, that was, and was intended to be, an insult.)

Jeez Mike....you just validated Bucket's characterization of Libs. Congrats man; that's a promotion to irrelevance.

P.S. with the right female partner, a reach around aint so bad.

(That was not intended as a shot at for you Bucket)

But who are the 47%? People talk about insults here but I want to understand. I get that the feeling is too many people get free stuff or want free stuff from the government, but how do we arrive at the 47% figure, and how do we arrive at everyone who voted for Obama, wants free stuff and/or is poor, things stated repeatedly here.

Certainly some part of the 47% gets a check and is not or has not been a contributing member of society but most paid or provided service, and they pay taxes like anyone else.

Some percentage of that 47% is included because of the bush tax cuts, which pushed 8 million people completely off the tax rolls. The current talks are unlikely to change that because neither democrats nor republicans will go so far as to let them all expire forever, but it's worth noting where some of it comes from. The lesson from that is that you can't cut taxes, and then complain that some people dropped off from paying taxes.

Now let's talk rationally about the idea that only poor people who want stuff from Obama. If you look at the exit polls, from Fox news for example (seriously the first google result, not commenting anything about it), you'll see that Obama got at least 42% support from all income levels.

He did get strong support from those making < 30k, but is everyone making under 30k poor liberal garbage? Or is it more likely that it's generally comprised of young people who simply make < 30k now? For example they are in college. Young people voted at nearly the same percentage as "poor" people, so it's something to consider that they are likely one and the same group.

Essentially, around 45% of "rich" people supported Obama. Are those people part of the 47%?

I agree to an extent about government waste, people getting checks for nothing, and so forth, but you cannot complain about broad labels and attacking different groups like the rich, and then go and do that exact same thing, labeling those who think different than you as poor, stupid, etc.

The 47% was a 'reference' for those folks that Romney figured he could not reach regardless of what he said... I used it in the same manor. A reference to MKelcy - that I wasn't really interested in trying to change his mind. I figured he wasn't going to agree to ANYTHING that I would say.


I don't recall him (Romney) --- or me (GregWeld) --- labeling them as stupid.. or poor... The reference was simply that you can't reach everyone.


See, to me this is part of the problem. We get bogged down arguing semantics rather than the basic issues. Sorry - you can count me out of arguments like that. They're pointless. Let's stick to just trying to find, or arguing about, a solution rather than picking up on whether someone watches Fox news - or wants to challenge an idea based on semantics. :cheers:

you never disappoint. :rolleyes:

I think for most of the electorate... this has been the choice for the last several elections. The choice really hasn't been FOR someone as much as it has been AGAINST someone else. Sadly --- I lay that at the feet of BOTH parties. We just don't seem to be able to get someone (let's go back to Reagan who carried 49 of 50 states or on the democratic side - Clinton - although that's a stretch in reality because of Ross Perot) that a majority of people can seem to get behind.

I thought Obama was going to be "the leader" --- based on his first election. But he's clearly made his bed with labeling the "rich" as something no one should aspire to... and with the disaster (my own label) Obamacare.

I'm for everyone getting healthcare - I just don't agree with the Obamacare way of doing that. But that's just ONE issue. I never vote single issues. I ALWAYS vote for the PERSON that I think can do the best job overall. I'm a right down the middle kind of guy. I just want a LEADER that is for what's best for everyone.

Ok so here's a question. Let's say they come to an agreement before the end of the year. Let's say it has revenue and cuts in the ballpark of halfway in between what the first offers were, in the range of 2 trillion, probably 1.2 revenue, 800 cuts. Clearly not the silver bullet to the deficit but a start and just generally calms everyone down.

Next year, let's say they negotiate tax reform and vastly simplify the tax system. This is widely anticipated as both sides want to do it although of course they differ on the details, but let's again assume it ends up balanced. The expectation is most rates would drop except capital gains which may increase, but it's way early to say.

All of that happens, does your view of the president change at all? Take all of your ideas about what you think would fix things, like a flat tax and realistically look at what can be accomplished, and what would at least qualify as him doing a satisfactory job?

That would qualify handily in my book! Then if "they" would modify Obamacare to create some cost controls in healthcare....he'd be the guy I voted for in 2008. :cheers:

That's pretty funny because I've tried to engage you on who the real drivers of the economy are, and you "surrender," and then talk about all the folks you're keeping employed building a car trailer.

New housing starts at an annual rate of approximately 900,000 units in November mean jobs for housing construction, furniture, appliances, cars, schools, etc. We need consumers to buy those houses, which the "job creators" building them apparently think will be there, even in this Obama dominated economy.

You may think that car trailers, yachts and wine cellars for the 1% are the drivers of the economy, but that's simply not the case. Without consumers, there are no jobs. Perhaps you disagree and can explain why; or perhaps you disagree but can't explain why.

Here's the simple non-semantic assertion - without consumers, there are no jobs, and putting more dollars in the hands of the lower and middle class more directly translates to consumer spending and, yes, jobs.

Notice, no semantics, just clear assertions based on facts. But feel free to "surrender" again and preach to the true believers about the 47% leeches who are destroying this country.