I can only imagine that the people who loved this country for being the beacon of liberty and freedom the likes of which the world had never seen and those that respect the grand vision and ideals of the founding fathers feel much the same way. The slow decent into socialism and soft tyranny will be much more rapid now. The world no longer has a shining city on a hill to look up to. God help us.

Even though the global population wanted to see Obama get re-elected. What's done is done, and one can only hope at this point.

Four more years of spurious spending on pet programs, only to see the money dissolve as fast as the companies.

Four more years of letting overseas companies swallow our own.

Four more years of printing extra money so that everyone can have some...only to see its value dive.

Four more years of no Federal Budget.

Four more years of Trillions in debt piling up and up...with no end in sight.

Four more years of Government picking and choosing which companies survive in a recession. And how to pay for that? By taxing the companies so THEY can't invest in what they want, but letting a bloated government spend on who they want to survive.

Four more years of people living on free food stamps, because they don't have to find jobs now, because of all the free money the government gives them. "I don't have to work..the Gov't is giving me all this because I'm entitled to it".

All this and more, boys n girls. All this because you "Hated" Romney, even tho you have no idea why.

I hated Romney for his views in terms of gays, and women. And a few other stances that he's flip-flopped on. The man, to me is a mental case, and I don't stand by that.

To be honest I didn't vote for either, but it will be interesting to see how another 4 years will play out. A lot of people voted Obama for everything but the financial standpoint.

I am scared too.

*blinks*

You are aware that Obama see our constitution as something that only stands in the way of his goals.

Wouldn't those be the values our country was founded on?

And you are aware that Romeny's tax plans regarding cuts for the rich have been shown to not work, and that the economy grows stronger under Democratic presidents than it does under Republican presidents... right?

We've had economic recovery under Obama. We're slowly inching out of the recession. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but it's getting better. The last thing we needed was a man who's foreign policy views are so out of touch that they still refer to the Russians as Soviets. That kind of ignorance would only serve to get us in another un-winnable war, and drive the debt up even further.

I'm absolutely not in love with all of Obama's policies, but Romney would have been an economic disaster and undone what little progress we've managed to actually get out of the past few years.

"And you are aware that Romeny's tax plans regarding cuts for the rich have been shown to not work"

"We've had economic recovery under Obama."

Both statements are utterly & outright untrue.

Limited economic recovery, as emphasized by my later phrasing. I don't know how else to categorize job growth and unemployment figures getting better, but it's awfully pessimistic to look at those numbers heading in the right direction and saying that things are getting worse.

And some sources on my other points:

More growth under Democrats: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business.....b4O/story.html
History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats: http://www.foxbusiness.com/investin.....der-democrats/
Graphs showing the failure of supply-side to reduce debt: http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/.....s-doesnt-work/
Summary of the recent non-partisan congressional research on tax rates and their link to economic growth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/.....n_1889686.html
Neo-conservative Ben Stein flat out saying that taxes must be increased for economic recovery: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/.....n_1980540.html

We can even look back to history. The New Deal and economic stimuli pushed us from the Great Depression. Stimuli absolutely do inject money into the local economy, through the Multiplier Effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin.....tiplier_effect ). We can argue that Obama hasn't done much in the way of actual stimuli, and that is a fair point, but the evidence is mounting that cutting taxes (especially cutting taxes on the wealthy) is not going to help us.

I wasn't happy voting for Obama (voted McCain back in '08), but it was the more rational vote in my eyes.

Okey dokey, I knew you were in error, I just wasn't sure exactly how. Soooo, I consulted one wiser then I. In his words......

=========================================================

That one's easy - he claims raising taxes on the rich will solve the deficit.

Latest figures available - 2009

People making over a million a year earn a total of $727 billion between them

Obama is running an average yearly deficit of $1.25 trillion

These people are already paying the top rate of 35%, meaning that $254.45 billion of the $727 billion is already being taken by the government, meaning that there's only $472.55 billion left to take

So if we take all of their remaining money in 2013 Obama will still have a $777.45 billion deficit

Deficits will then go up to $1.50 trillion in 2014 due to there being no more millionaires left to tax - $1.25 trillion for his normal deficit plus $250 billion in lost revenue from those millionaires no longer paying taxes due to all being broke

The reality is that it'll actually be higher since tens of thousands of jobs will be destroyed in the process, thus causing the government to pull in less taxes and pay out more benefits in the form of welfare, unemployment, etc

=============================================================

So no, yur facts are still in error.

You are right that it is not enough, but I never claimed that it was enough on its own. However, decreasing that revenue stream when it already doesn't offset the deficit is positively foolish, considering that (as my sources showed you) tax cuts for the wealthy have been shown to not stimulate the economy. To cut their taxes further, when they're already paying their lowest tax rate historically, just for the sake of doing it is cronyism at the expense of the country's well-being.

A modest tax increase from 35% to 45%, coupled with the implementation of a value added tax system for corporate America would be a positive move in offsetting the deficit. It's not perfect; spending absolutely needs to be curbed alongside such a move, but budget growth under Obama is the lowest of any president since Eisenhower (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ ). Spending has clearly started moving in the right direction already (while obviously having not inched over to the full positive side).

Sooooo, your claiming that an increase in the federal defecate in excess of 1 trillion a year, that the Obama administration had run up more defecate than every president from George Washington to Bill Clinton (some say through the Bush presidency now) is "the lowest of any president since Eisenhower" and that "Spending has clearly started moving in the right direction"?

And to say that taking more away from those that create jobs is a way to stimulate the economy is foolish. IE: Try & get a job from a poor person, see how that works for ya. Also, to say that the wealthy are "already paying their lowest tax rate historically" might not be totally inaccurate (I would have to check), but it is misleading. The tax rates the wealthy pay are the same percentage as everyone else pays. (in respect to capitol gains and/or federal income taxes) And the fact that the top 1% of wage earners pay 35% of all federal income taxes in the country, that the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the federal income taxes, & the bottom 47% pay 0% of the federal income taxes. It's very hard to say... They don't pay their fair share.

To add, is ya think "a value added tax system for corporate America would be a positive move", you odiously have no idea how taxes work with corporations. Corporations DO NOT pay taxes, people pay taxes. Any tax a corporation incurs would be passed to the end purchaser thus further weakening the economy.

I'm not saying it. Forbes said it. Spending growth has shrunken. Yes this does mean that spending itself has increased, but given that spending has increased under every single president I will absolutely accept a slowing rate of growth as a sign that spending is starting to move in the right way.

"The tax rates the wealthy pay are the same percentage as everyone else pays. (in respect to capitol gains and/or federal income taxes" - This is flat out wrong. We have a bracketed (progressive) tax system. The highest earners pay at a higher rate.

I'm not saying that, the research I linked said it. The wealthy may not being at their lowest rate (I too have to doublecheck that to be certain), but their rate was right around 90% in the 40's, so I feel fairly confident that I'm at least close. Let's take a quick look at this compilation of tax rates historically ( http://taxfoundation.org/article/us.....usted-brackets ). The highest income tax brackets had rates of 90%+ from 1944 - 1963, and nearly ever single year in that span saw GDP growth (1946 and 1949 showed small drops). This span saw unemployment rates ranging from 1.2 to 6.8. Unemployment did initially drop when the highest tax bracket was lowered in 1964; however, it never managed to dip below 3%, where it was in 1952. If there is a correlation between tax rates on the wealthy and employment rates it is an incredibly small one.

Forgive if I'm wrong here, but I don't think you know what a value added tax actually is. A value added tax is a system (which would replace the current corporate tax system, so it's not just "more taxes"). Such a system does not directly tax income, but rather taxes the difference between revenue and product expense. If a company buys in $200,000 worth of component parts and sells their end result for $300,000, they'd be taxed purely on that added value of $100,000. Yes, it is still paid by the consumer in the end as all corporate taxes are, but that does not make it a bad thing. A switch to a VAT system coupled with a shift in tax brackets such that the wealthiest Americans are given a marginally higher rate and those revenues are transfered to the lower brackets via lowered rates there, we're looking at an overall gain (tax revenues stable, spending increases as the middle and lower-middle brackets have more money, spending is taxed at a slightly higher rate).

Spending growth has shrunken. Yes this does mean that spending itself has increased, but given that spending has increased under every single president I will absolutely accept a slowing rate of growth as a sign that spending is starting to move in the right way.

Deficits under Obama have doubled compared to Bush.

Spending as a percentage of GDP is higher now then 2008.

To try to claim that these numbers constantly increasing equals a decrease in spending defies logic, math and basic economics.

As for trying to decrease the budget by taxing the rich - sorry friend, not happening - you can tax them 100% and you wouldn't even cut Obama's $1.25 trillion deficits by half.

In the area of tax cuts improving the economy (and therefore tax revenues), I can give you a couple of examples without even hitting Google - back in the 20s they cut the top tax rate by two thirds, JFK in the sixties, Reagan in the 80s and Ireland in the 90s.

Looking at your arguments it's obvious that you believe in zero sum game, ie/the finite pie. Tax cuts increase the size of that pie by putting more money back into the economy for investment and expansion of business as well as drawing business to the area with the low taxes.

What's better - 20% of a 100 unit pie or 18% of a 120 unit pie?

Obviously 18% is better then 20%, not just because it brings in more taxes but because it you've now got 20% more economy, never a bad thing.

Sorry friend, but math, economics and history is against you - Obama can't cut the deficit without cutting spending - raising taxes won't help.

"To try to claim that these numbers constantly increasing equals a decrease in spending defies logic, math and basic economics."

Yes, the deficit is still growing, however spending growth is shrinking. Spending has increased under every single president mentioned in my Forbes link, but the evidence suggests that Obama is reigning in that growth in that the rate at which spending is increasing is lower than under any president since Eisenhower. The logic is simple: If spending growth is slower under Obama than under any prior president in the past 60 years, that means we are gradually moving in the direction of spending shrink. It's slow, but we're also in a recession, and as almost any respected economist will tell you: Keynesian economics works to drag an economy back from a recession. I have not seen you or SkunkPower actually supply any sources whatsoever that suggest that spending on stimuli do not work or that the multiplier effect does not work.


"As for trying to decrease the budget by taxing the rich - sorry friend, not happening - you can tax them 100% and you wouldn't even cut Obama's $1.25 trillion deficits by half."

So the logic then is if we can't zero it out, we might as well make no progress whatsoever?


"In the area of tax cuts improving the economy (and therefore tax revenues), I can give you a couple of examples without even hitting Google - back in the 20s they cut the top tax rate by two thirds, JFK in the sixties, Reagan in the 80s and Ireland in the 90s."

I can't argue against one. Tax cuts can induce spending, you are right. The question becomes whether or not we can actually afford to cut taxes further right now with the deficit where it is. In reality, the plan I've outlined which would see the wealthiest 1% take a small tax hike to fund a tax cut for the middle class accomplishes both goals, does it not? It provides the tax cut that can help get Americans spending again with a rather clear source for the money. I'd like to know where you propose we get the money to fund another tax cut with the deficit as bad as it is. However, I do not fully support such a plan, because...


"Looking at your arguments it's obvious that you believe in zero sum game, ie/the finite pie. Tax cuts increase the size of that pie by putting more money back into the economy for investment and expansion of business as well as drawing business to the area with the low taxes."

Stimulus spending and the multiplier effect do the same thing, only better. Not only do we get to inject new money into the economy, but that new money comes alongside directly creating new jobs and new infrastructure.


"Sorry friend, but math, economics and history is against you - Obama can't cut the deficit without cutting spending - raising taxes won't help."

I do believe you'll find that math isn't on the side of those proposing tax cuts with no means to fund them as a means to decrease the deficit. Spending does need to be cut, but it's important to take perspective of exactly what we are cutting. Bloated defense budget? Sure. Red tape bureaucracy? Sure.

Increasing taxes in an economic downturn is like flooding a ship because the waterline is high. It'll be interesting to see when all the new taxes kick in just how much worse the economy gets.

1. The president is only proposing increasing taxes on the incredible minority of people who make more than $250,000 per year.
2. He's proposing a moderate 5% increase.
3. The way bracketing works, only money made beyond the $250,000 mark is taxed at the higher rate, even for those people affected.
4. That tax hike could be used to fund other economic stimuli, namely either a tax cut for lower brackets, or ideally economic stimuli which would actually create jobs.

The economy and the deficit are at such a point where simply cutting spending will not prove to be enough; revenues need to be increased. If it were a matter of one issue or the other, then yes, we could cut taxes to boost the economy (but now that makes the deficit worse), or we could cut spending to help the deficit (but now that does nothing for the economy, and arguably makes things worse for many people).

We're at a point right now where we have to get the economy kickstarted. Increasing taxes for the wealthiest Americans could give the government the extra funds it needs to get some economic stimuli together (even in the form of tax credits which encourage spending on energy efficient appliances). At the same time, cutting some spending would help immensely (and I will say that Obama has not done nearly a good enough job on this front).

I don't want anyone under the impression here that I think Obama is doing a bang-up job with this country. However, I could not support Romney whatsoever. Further tax cuts for the wealthy (which we can't afford), despite congressional non-partisan research coming out this year showing that cutting taxes for the wealthy does not improve the economy, coupled with spending reductions targeted for useful departments are not the right recipe for sure.

I guess well have ta wait & see if the next 4 years plays out as poorly as the last.

The rest of what ya stated isn't much more then liberal talking points.

Wow look at all these skunks! I was linked by a wonderful skunk friend :3 You guys are all fighting for no real reason. what is done is done! Why fight over silly politics and just smile over what we have?

BTW I am a maned wolf aka a skunk wolf! So I belong... kinda >.>

Awwww, This isn't a skunk only party hun. All are welcome.

*snuggles the skunkwolf*