Obama's house campaign speech: strawmen and hubris

Schadenfreude said:
did you look at my reply to yurt?

if you think that obama's poll numbers are bad, you should see congress's, especially the repugs

also, there was another poll where about 75% polled said that jobs were their highest priority while the other answer available was the deficit which came in distant second (per cnn)
Click to expand...
And if Obama does not start pulling the center back in, his numbers will start resembling those of congress.

Plus, of those who put jobs first, I'd wager a large percentage also believe that increasing the deficit farther will do more to harm the jobs market than help.
 
Good Luck said:
And if Obama does not start pulling the center back in, his numbers will start resembling those of congress.

Plus, of those who put jobs first, I'd wager a large percentage also believe that increasing the deficit farther will do more to harm the jobs market than help.
Click to expand...

the repugs cannot even see the center

it will be interesting to see obama's and congress's poll numbers next week...especially if congress delays on passing this program...

as for those that have jobs, too many of them are underemployed or working part time sans benefits and would be happy to see more and better jobs available
 
I'll go out on a limb and predict the House will reject anything that includes a tax increase. Obama neglected to tell us where the money was going to come from, but he trotted out the familiar line about soaking the rich... and we just had this debate, we nearly sent the nation into default over this... it's not going to pass now. It seems this is the 'plan' for the Obama campaign, to package their agenda in a "jobs bill" and dare Republicans to reject it... well, they are going to reject it, if it includes tax increases, which it sounded like it would.
 
Good Luck said:
And if Obama does not start pulling the center back in, his numbers will start resembling those of congress.

Plus, of those who put jobs first, I'd wager a large percentage also believe that increasing the deficit farther will do more to harm the jobs market than help.
Click to expand...

You would lose that wager.

People who don't have jobs don't give a fuck about the deficit.

This is the stupidest thing I have read in months.
 
Good Luck said:
The problem is the dems are not the ones he needs to impress. The dems will blithely follow their Savior right off any cliff he happens to pick, like the good little lemmings they are.

And if you think voting against another big spending bill under the heading of stimulus will harm republicans, guess again. Not only will those on the right celebrate standing up to more deficit spending, but those right of center, and even some of those left of center are more likely to accept the need to cut spending over voting for yet more deficit spending. We are watching countries across the world tightening their belts in a big way. Austerity is the government budget word of the year, and while few in America are hoping for austerity, I would wager far more are in favor of reducing the deficit as opposed to adding yet more to it.
Click to expand...

Lemmings don't jump over cliffs in an act of mass suicide, that canard can be attributed to Disney. I personally think that there is an even bigger depression in the offing that mirrors that of 1934-37, doing nothing will guarantee that happening.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Fed-economy-meeting-depression/2011/08/07/id/406455
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
I'll go out on a limb and predict the House will reject anything that includes a tax increase. Obama neglected to tell us where the money was going to come from, but he trotted out the familiar line about soaking the rich... and we just had this debate, we nearly sent the nation into default over this... it's not going to pass now. It seems this is the 'plan' for the Obama campaign, to package their agenda in a "jobs bill" and dare Republicans to reject it... well, they are going to reject it, if it includes tax increases, which it sounded like it would.
Click to expand...

He has yet to put anything on paper, when he says he'll "send a plan" it means he expects them to write it.
 
Damocles said:
He has yet to put anything on paper, when he says he'll "send a plan" it means he expects them to write it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Rumor has it that he can't write very well. That's why he has no college papers to show and has hid his test scores.
 
Elias Koteas said:
Well, if the proposal has corporate tax reductions and eliminates loopholes, I can at least look forward to that.
Click to expand...

That's because you are an emotive nitwit, like MANY others out there, who don't fully comprehend the dialogue. Why is it, we are always hearing "eliminate loopholes" but no actual specifics are ever presented? It's because, to most rational people, a "loophole" is viewed as a cheat on the system.... a catch... a way around the norm... so it stands to reason, people are generally not in favor of "loopholes" of any kind. But what specifically do they mean, by "loopholes?" Has anyone ever questioned that? Nope... because it's emotive! Loopholes = BAD! Eliminating Loopholes = GOOD!

Your mortgage interest deduction is a "loophole" in the tax code. It allows you to claim a deduction which isn't realized by non-homeowners. The deduction (or credit) you receive for monies put into a retirement account, is a "loophole" in the tax code. It allows you to divert income to an account without paying tax on it. These are two fairly substantial "loopholes" which effect a good majority of mainstream middle class Americans, but the mantra of "eliminating the loopholes" doesn't tell you that, it's packaged and billed as something only the rich have privy to, which is just not the case.
 
Yurt said:
pretty much a repeat. btw, who is out there claiming we don't need schools and highways? he threw around numerous strawmen in attempt to jerk people's emotions. further, if this is so important, why did he wait so long?
Click to expand...
He had to finsih his vacation first...
 
Good Luck said:
And if Obama does not start pulling the center back in, his numbers will start resembling those of congress.

Plus, of those who put jobs first, I'd wager a large percentage also believe that increasing the deficit farther will do more to harm the jobs market than help.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Dixie said:
That's because you are an emotive nitwit, like MANY others out there, who don't fully comprehend the dialogue. Why is it, we are always hearing "eliminate loopholes" but no actual specifics are ever presented? It's because, to most rational people, a "loophole" is viewed as a cheat on the system.... a catch... a way around the norm... so it stands to reason, people are generally not in favor of "loopholes" of any kind. But what specifically do they mean, by "loopholes?" Has anyone ever questioned that? Nope... because it's emotive! Loopholes = BAD! Eliminating Loopholes = GOOD!

Your mortgage interest deduction is a "loophole" in the tax code. It allows you to claim a deduction which isn't realized by non-homeowners. The deduction (or credit) you receive for monies put into a retirement account, is a "loophole" in the tax code. It allows you to divert income to an account without paying tax on it. These are two fairly substantial "loopholes" which effect a good majority of mainstream middle class Americans, but the mantra of "eliminating the loopholes" doesn't tell you that, it's packaged and billed as something only the rich have privy to, which is just not the case.
Click to expand...

Loophole usually refers to something put into a law that people started abusing in ways that weren't intended. The mortage interest deduction isn't a loophole because nobody's using in a way it was intended.

If you want to see the specifics, you can always look them up online. I'm sure conservatives will be more than proficient in coming up with things they don't consider loopholes. In practical speech, we need a way to refer to something simply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top