Obama the biggest recipient of BP oil cash

[1bad65]

You gotta love this one!

"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

In Congress, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who last week cautioned that the incident should “not be used inappropriately” to halt Obama’s push for expansion of offshore drilling, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of BP’s largesse. Her comments created some blowback, with critics complaining that she is too blasé about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill.

As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall.

Several BP executives have given directly to Landrieu’s campaign, including current and previous U.S. operation Presidents Lamar McKay and Robert Malone. Other donors include Margaret Hudson, BP’s America vice president, and Benjamin Cannon, federal affairs director for the U.S. branch. Donations ranged from $1,000 to $2,300 during the past campaign cycle.

Environmentalists complain that Landrieu has played down the impact of oil spills.

“They own Mary Landrieu and the rest of the Louisiana delegation,” said Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies. “They have more money, disposable income and a fleet of dispensable lobbyists to beat the band.”"

Source:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

I wondered why Obama just came out and said he supported offshore drilling. Now I know why!

[solo1]

why is anyoone surprised at this hypocritical sack of @#*+

[Reality_Check]

So, how many of those contributions happened after the oil spill?

In addition:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/04/04greenwire-big-contributor-bp-finds-itself-without-a-frie-26062.html


The company's political action committee has helped the re-election efforts of many, including Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has backed expanded drilling; and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who sits on key committees and whose state right now stands to be the most affected by oil headed for land. Landrieu also is considered a swing vote in climate legislation.

And that's just part of BP's political spending.


BP has enriched the campaign coffers of Landrieu, giving her $16,250 in the 2008 campaign cycle, when she was up for re-election. That contribution made Landrieu third for the highest amount received from BP's political action committee or BP employees. The first two were then-Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee John McCain.


BP gave McConnell's re-election campaign $8,500 in 2008. McConnell's office did not directly address the campaign contributions.


Murkowski has received $7,000 from BP this campaign cycle, according to Center for Responsive Politics.


BP in the past two election cycles has given $10,200 to Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), who is on the House Appropriations Committee.

[Drake]

Actually... oil rig accidents are pretty rare. One accident and now they are TEH DEADLY?

[1bad65]

So, how many of those contributions happened after the oil spill?

LMAO at you making excuses for the Kenyan socialist who loves American corporations cash.

[Reality_Check]

LMAO at you making excuses for the Kenyan socialist who loves American corporations cash.

All politicians take corporate contributions. Heck, the conservative leaning Supreme Court just removed the limits on corporate contributions. Besides, aren't corporations people too?

I would note that total amount indicated in that article is a drop in the bucket compared to the contributions made to George W. Bush by Enron. :D

[1bad65]

I would note that total amount indicated in that article is a drop in the bucket compared to the contributions made to George W. Bush by Enron. :D

But Bush wasn't bashing Enron while taking the cash. Nor did he flip-flop to help his corporate givers, unlike what Obama did by flip-flopping on offshore drilling.

[Reality_Check]

But Bush wasn't bashing Enron while taking the cash. Nor did he flip-flop to help his corporate givers, unlike what Obama did by flip-flopping on offshore drilling.

And when did President Obama bash BP while taking their cash? I mean during the Presidential campaign.

[1bad65]

And when did President Obama bash BP while taking their cash? I mean during the Presidential campaign.

What rock are you living under? The guy bashes 'big business' and 'big oil' every chance he gets.

[1bad65]

If I post stories/video/etc of him bashing 'Big Oil' and offshore drilling during the campaign, you will admit he is a hypocrite, right?

[Reality_Check]

If I post stories/video/etc of him bashing 'Big Oil' and offshore drilling during the campaign, you will admit he is a hypocrite, right?

I guess by your definition if one takes money from a contributor, one is forever prevented from criticizing them.

Oh, I found this interesting:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/05/bp-and-obama-playing-internet-gotcha-with-campaign-finance-numbers/


BP And Obama: Playing Internet Gotcha With Campaign Finance Numbers

Politico has a scoop today (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html) tailor-made for the online, read-a-headline-and-click-away culture. "Obama Biggest Recipient of BP Cash" it blares, gaining the coveted Matt Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/) link with a dollar sign in the word "CA$H" to prove the point. In the print copy of Politico, the Drudge-bait is toned down, "Before Spill, BP Pumped Money Into Washington." Campaign finance stories like this are necessary, especially with the Washington Post reporting today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html?nav=emailpage) that the Obama Administration exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental study on an apparently flawed premise. But one can't help but wonder if this specific campaign finance story was written in an overly online-friendly way.

My concern is that the story wins the Drudge link, but fails to provide the context readers need. It is true that according to this online database (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000091&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=A) Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else. But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests--and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle.

The article presents the money as a largely Democratic problem, highlighting the donations to Obama and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu at the top of the piece. Much lower down do we get mention of the fact that historically Republicans have taken much more money from BP, but this is buried in the assertion that Democrats have almost pulled even with Republicans in recent years. That's one way of slicing the numbers. Another would be to say that in the last 20 years, BP has given (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000091&cycle=2000) 71 percent of its money to Republicans, and 29 percent to Democrats. (That number is not in the story, which also chooses not to count soft money contributions during the 20-year horizon. If soft money, which was given to party committees, not individuals, Obama would no longer be the top recipient. BP, for instance, gave more than $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?capcode=23753&name=bp&employ=&cand=&state=&zip=&all=N&old=Y&c2008=N&c2006=N&c2010=N&sort=D&page=&page=2), far more than the money that went to Obama.) One could also point out that of the top 30 recipients of BP money over this time period, 26 are Republican and only four are Democrats.

One other bit of context that might have been useful in the Politico story, but might also have hurt its chances for news cycle impact: The Center for Responsive Politics keeps a list of heavy hitter institutional campaign donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php). By total donations given since 1989, BP ranks number 106, behind the Southern Company, Exxon, Chevron and even Enron, which has not existed for most of the last decade. BP's total donations, of more than $6 million with soft money, pales in comparison to the $45 million given by AT&T, which is number one on the list, or the $32 million that was given by Goldman Sachs, over the same time period.

Another interesting question to ask is, has BP historically punched its own weight in campaign contributions? In recent years, BP has been listed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue) as the fourth largest company in the world by revenue. Exxon, which has had slightly larger revenue, gave 74 percent more money in contributions than BP over the same period ($10.8 million vs. $6.2 million). Now revenue is a crude measure of a company's regulatory interests. But it can also be said that adding such context, while serving the reader, might have dimmed the chances of success online. In the Interweb, as we all know, articles tend to thrive when they appeal simply to partisan loyalties.

This is funny:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/05/obama_has_to_answer_for_donati.html


Why did you take money from a company whose oil rig was going to explode two years later, Obama?!? B@stard!

[1bad65]

I guess by your definition if one takes money from a contributor, one is forever prevented from criticizing them.

Not at all. But when he says one thing, then takes the money, then flip-flops, it's hypocracy on parade.

"Sen. Barack Obama stood his ground Wednesday in opposing what he calls the "scheme" of offshore drilling, during a campaign event in Springfield, Missouri.

"The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they're doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

"I understand how desperate folks are. If I thought that I could provide you some immediate relief on gas by drilling off the shores of California and New Jersey... I'd do it.”

But the Democratic presidential candidate added, "The soonest you would see any drop of oil from drilling off our shores would be 10 years from now....The most you would end up saving 10 years or 20 years from now would be a few cents on the gallon, although at that point, I figure oil might be $12 a gallon."

Citing the oil companies' record profits, Obama charged that they are, "making money hand-over fist, they're making out like bandits."

Obama then proposed his own answers: "First of all, let's make the oil companies drill where they're already got leases, let's increase supply by making them do what they're supposed to do."

Obama also said he wants to make sure speculators aren't manipulating the oil markets.

To a standing ovation, he said, "And let's get serious about alternative energy sources like solar and wind and bio-diesel. Let's raise fuel efficiency standards on cars. Let's get plug-in hybrids all across America. Let's finally free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. That's the direction we need to go.""

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/obama-calls-offshore-drilling-a-scheme/?fbid=d4aaxoiBn0I

So first it's a "scheme", then when the money rolls in he suddenly decides it's good policy. Hypocrite.

[1bad65]

Here he blasts the oil companies for their lobbying and how they are shaping policy. Of course the checks from 'Big Oil' were rolling in while he was saying this. :rolleyes:

"Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama lashed out Monday at the power of the oil, insurance and pharmaceutical industries in blocking progressive policy in Washington and used his charges to bolster his calls for ethical reforms in government.

"The reason that we're not getting things done is not because we don't have good plans or good policy prescriptions," Obama said. "The reason is because it's not our agenda that's being moved forward in Washington -- it's the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity."

Speaking at Roosevelt Middle School, not far from the Cedar River, Obama said if he is elected, no one who worked in his administration would be allowed to lobby the White House after they left -- a revolving-door ban affecting potentially thousands of workers."

Source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama_tuejul31,0,3036878.story

[Reality_Check]

You make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). :eek:

"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

[1bad65]

Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

Of course I want him to fail in implementing his policies. I don't like recort deficits, ~10% unemployment, and growing inflation. Do you?

[Drake]

Of course I want him to fail in implementing his policies. I don't like recort deficits, ~10% unemployment, and growing inflation. Do you?

Best job gain in four years...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/07/news/economy/jobs_april/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T3

And who really is responsible for the unemployment? REALLY? Or the deficit? Who wiped out our surplus?

Seriously... really now...

[SanHeChuan]

http://hoosieraccess.com/files/2010/01/snl_really.jpg

:D...........................

[1bad65]

Best job gain in four years...

Yet unemployment is UP to 9.9%


And who really is responsible for the unemployment? REALLY? Or the deficit? Who wiped out our surplus?

Seriously... really now...

It's not just one person's fault, plenty of blame to go around there. I'll admit that. But we were promised us that unemployment would not go above 8% if we passed the Kenyan's 'stimulus' package. So not only did unemployment go up to 10%, we have a huge bill to foot now. But some of us saw the fail coming, because we are not ignorant of history:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. After eight years we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot." -Henry Morganthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Of course the Kenyan screwed it up even worse, as unemployment under his massive spending actually went up! :eek:

[Reality_Check]

You make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). :eek:

"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

[1bad65]

Are you gonna spam the forum, or address the points I made? :rolleyes:

[Drake]

You could start by referring to him as the president, and not "The Kenyan". That is disrespectful, and unless you change this, our discussion is over.

[Reality_Check]

Are you gonna spam the forum, or address the points I made? :rolleyes:

Who is spamming the forum again? From the front page of the OT board:

Obama the biggest recipient of BP oil cash (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57167)

Don't mess with Texas (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57097)

Al Sharpton 'No social justice til everything "Equal in everybody's house" (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57180)

Go Arizona! (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57083)

Liberals ban Happy Meal toys (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57100)

Obama got 7x more from Goldman Sachs than Bush got from Enron (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57016)

Obama got 7x more from Goldman Sachs than Bush got from Enron (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56949)

Health overhaul to increase costs (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57047)


You make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). :eek:

"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

[1bad65]

You could start by referring to him as the president, and not "The Kenyan". That is disrespectful, and unless you change this, our discussion is over.

His wife said it first. Not me. How is it disrespectful to call a man whose home country is Kenya a Kenyan? My home state is Texas, and I don't get mad when I'm called a Texan.

I can post the clip if you want.

[1bad65]

Who is spamming the forum again? From the front page of the OT board:

Notice I'm not cut-and-pasting the same post over and over and over.

It speaks volumes that neither you or Drake will address my points (although Drake is upset over a truthful dig I made, so he gets a pass for now ;)).

[1bad65]

Yes, you're a good guy and I really don't antagonize you on purpose.

I did have a point in that particular post in referring to him as "the Kenyan". My point was that in American history, which I mentioned, we had tried something and it had failed badly. So my point was that since he came from another country (and those were his wife's words, not mine), maybe he was ignorant of our history and that fact that his idea had been tried in this country before and it failed. So calling him that, in that post, was germaine to the conversation.

I'll not do it again, use that term. Of course in the future I may again point out what his wife said. But I will not use the term "the Kenyan" on this board because you asked me not to. And you know I have honored my word to you in the past.

[Reality_Check]

It speaks volumes that neither you or Drake will address my points (although Drake is upset over a truthful dig I made, so he gets a pass for now ;)).

It speaks volumes about you that you engage in such sop****ric insults regarding the President.

[1bad65]

It speaks volumes about you that you engage in such sop****ric insults regarding the President.

His wife said it first! Jump her ass about it!

Still ignoring that post, huh? I must have made a really good point. ;)

[Reality_Check]

His wife said it first! Jump her ass about it!

Perhaps I should have said juvenile. I don't recall any posts I've made that insulted President Bush. As a matter of fact, I've always referred to him as:

"President Bush"
"President George W. Bush"
"Former President Bush"
"George Bush"
"George W. Bush"

While I may have vehemently disagreed with many things he did while in office (just as I disagree with many things President Obama is doing), I never demeaned myself by using childish insults. I have too much respect for the Presidency. Too much respect for myself. And too much respect for the other posters.

[mawali]

His wife said it first. Not me. How is it disrespectful to call a man whose home country is Kenya a Kenyan? My home state is Texas, and I don't get mad when I'm called a Texan.

I can post the clip if you want.

It may be meaningless but it is part of his heritage but he is still American.
Why not call him Hawaiian or Kansan since that is part of his American roots just as Texan is to yours. Why choose one part and not the whole to attempt to strike discord?

[Hardwork108]

You gotta love this one!

"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

In Congress, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who last week cautioned that the incident should “not be used inappropriately” to halt Obama’s push for expansion of offshore drilling, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of BP’s largesse. Her comments created some blowback, with critics complaining that she is too blasé about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill.

As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall.

Several BP executives have given directly to Landrieu’s campaign, including current and previous U.S. operation Presidents Lamar McKay and Robert Malone. Other donors include Margaret Hudson, BP’s America vice president, and Benjamin Cannon, federal affairs director for the U.S. branch. Donations ranged from $1,000 to $2,300 during the past campaign cycle.

Environmentalists complain that Landrieu has played down the impact of oil spills.

“They own Mary Landrieu and the rest of the Louisiana delegation,” said Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies. “They have more money, disposable income and a fleet of dispensable lobbyists to beat the band.”"

Source:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

I wondered why Obama just came out and said he supported offshore drilling. Now I know why!

1bad65, ALL Presidents are corrupt and immoral, no matter what party they represent, because at the end of the day, their strings are pulled by the same people. It is just that the latest one is perhaps (or perhaps not) corrupter than his predecessor. That is all.

[1bad65]

It may be meaningless but it is part of his heritage but he is still American.
Why not call him Hawaiian or Kansan since that is part of his American roots just as Texan is to yours. Why choose one part and not the whole to attempt to strike discord?

Not to harp on this, but his wife said his home country was Kenya. She could have said he was from Hawaii, or Kansas, or even (gasp!) America.

[SanHeChuan]

Not to harp on this, but his wife said his home country was Kenya. She could have said he was from Hawaii, or Kansas, or even (gasp!) America.

Context and intent are the defining factors.

You brought it up to highlight his "otherness" to imply that he is not American enough and therefore in your eyes less than. It was Xenophobic. It is the same “exclusive” line of thought to point out the differences in people that fuels racism.



I did have a point in that particular post in referring to him as "the Kenyan". My point was that in American history, which I mentioned, we had tried something and it had failed badly. So my point was that since he came from another country (and those were his wife's words, not mine), maybe he was ignorant of our history and that fact that his idea had been tried in this country before and it failed.

Obama wasn’t born in Kenya. Obama didn't grow up in Kenya. He is of Kenyan ancestry. I don’t know your ancestry but a good bet is part German. Should we refer to you as “the German” in every post?

[KC Elbows]

What 1badabinlauden said is absolutely right.

[1bad65]

You brought it up to highlight his "otherness" to imply that he is not American enough and therefore in your eyes less than. It was Xenophobic. It is the same “exclusive” line of thought to point out the differences in people that fuels racism.

Why do you liberals constantly harp on race? Please tell me why, I've been wondering this for 20 years now.

It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with the Constitution and the rule of law. If the guys own wife can't be proud enough of this great country to refer to it as his home country, how the hell does that make me a racist by pointing that out?


Obama wasn’t born in Kenya. Obama didn't grow up in Kenya. He is of Kenyan ancestry. I don’t know your ancestry but a good bet is part German. Should we refer to you as “the German” in every post?

If my wife starts calling Germany my home country, feel free to refer to me as "the German".

I have ancestry outside of this country. Yet I proudly refer to myself as an American, and I refer to America as my home country.

[1bad65]

What 1badabinlauden said is absolutely right.

I don't know whether you mean this as a good or a bad thing. :confused:

[KC Elbows]

I don't know whether you mean this as a good or a bad thing. :confused:

I was only referring to the fact that you live in a cave and hang out with sweaty men.

However, I will not call you that again, you know I am good on my word, though I may again bring up that you live in a cave and hang out with sweaty men.;):D

[SanHeChuan]

Why do you liberals constantly harp on race? Please tell me why, I've been wondering this for 20 years now.

Because people like you keep pointing it out.



It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with the Constitution and the rule of law. If the guys own wife can't be proud enough of this great country to refer to it as his home country, how the hell does that make me a racist by pointing that out?

Oh so you’re a Birther now? Your first and second sentence have nothing to do with each other, where does it say in the constitution that you are not allowed to refer to your ancestry? You didn't just point it out, you twisted her words to turn his ancestry as a black man from Africa into a negative attribute, even pointing to "possible" ignorance on his part because of his heritage.


If my wife starts calling Germany my home country, feel free to refer to me as "the German".

I have ancestry outside of this country. Yet I proudly refer to myself as an American, and I refer to America as my home country.

You are misrepresenting the quote to push your agenda.


"What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country – the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama – a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world."
-M. Obama

She doesn't say that Kenya is his home country; she said the people of Africa were excited to see someone of African ancestry rise to such lofty heights. Why would the people of Africa be excited to see an American? They wouldn't "American" is not a part of their identity, that's why she didn't mention it within the context of her conversation.

[1bad65]

Because people like you keep pointing it out.

No, I said Kenya which is a country. You then brought up race. Yet again.

So the question remains...


Oh so you’re a Birther now? Your first and second sentence have nothing to do with each other, where does it say in the constitution that you are not allowed to refer to your ancestry? You didn't just point it out, you twisted her words to turn his ancestry as a black man from Africa into a negative attribute, even pointing to "possible" ignorance on his part because of his heritage.

There you go again...:rolleyes:


You are misrepresenting the quote to push your agenda.

Good thing you're here to twist my posts around.


She doesn't say that Kenya is his home country; she said the people of Africa were excited to see someone of African ancestry rise to such lofty heights. Why would the people of Africa be excited to see an American? They wouldn't "American" is not a part of their identity, that's why she didn't mention it within the context of her conversation.

Now you're changing her words around! LMFAO!

So, if someone says something that doesn't fit what you wish they said, you just add or subtract words, right?

"When we took our trip to Africa, and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test." -Michelle Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo2XrPtPApo&feature=related

So, she did say Kenya is his home country. I can see you have problems with written English, what with you not seeing words that are there and you seeing words that aren't there as well. But are you also having problems now with spoken English?

[SanHeChuan]

No, I said Kenya which is a country. You then brought up race. Yet again.

So the question remains...

So... You don't think Xenophobia is tantamount to racism.


An unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

Or


Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Seems pretty similar to me.


"When we took our trip to Africa, and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test." -Michelle Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo2XrPtPApo&feature=related

Ok so you found a quote where she did "misspeak".
He must "REALLY" be the Kenyan Manchurian candidate.
All your Xenophobic hate is now justified. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

So... You don't think Xenophobia is tantamount to racism.

I'm not going to get into this with you. You have repeatedly brought up race, while I brought up the Constitution.

Put it this way: If what I posted about him being from Kenya is racist, then I'm as much a racist as the Founding Fathers. They made the rule, after all.


Ok so you found a quote where she did "misspeak".
He must "REALLY" be the Kenyan Manchurian candidate.
All your Xenophobic hate is now justified. :rolleyes:

So, she misspoke? Did she tell you that? Do you have her on record stating that? Or are you just making things up, again. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

I'm really sick of this crap that if you criticize Obama, you're a racist.

I've criticized on this board people like Chris Dodd, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Mary Landrieu, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Ward Churchill among others. Yet when I add Obama to the list, now I'm suddenly a racist. :rolleyes:

[Reality_Check]

To me 1bad65's behavior seems fairly transparent. President Obama won the election fairly, by a large margin. So, he and his ilk must paint President Obama as "other"...as something foreign and illegitimate.

In a nutshell, he's a sore loser. What they couldn't win at the ballot box, they'll try to destroy by smears and innuendo. It's tribalism at its "finest".

[Reality_Check]

You brought it up to highlight his "otherness" to imply that he is not American enough and therefore in your eyes less than. It was Xenophobic.


It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with the Constitution and the rule of law.


Oh so you’re a Birther now? Your first and second sentence have nothing to do with each other, where does it say in the constitution that you are not allowed to refer to your ancestry?

I would like to see 1bad65 address this instead of ignoring it.

[mawali]

Not to harp on this, but his wife said his home country was Kenya. She could have said he was from Hawaii, or Kansas, or even (gasp!) America.

Obama has ties to that country since his father's family is from there! Kenyans know that and Obama, as an Americas, is acknowledged as being born is USA.
Just as an American (obviosuly recent) of Serb origin will consider Serbia his home as opposed to Croatia or Bulgaria.
I am sure you realize Americans of different backgrounds express solidarity in many ways in the reverence of where their parents were born. If you are a recent immigrant, it is different from one who came to USA at the turn of the century (e,g 19th century) who are further removed from their roots than the former!

[1bad65]

To me 1bad65's behavior seems fairly transparent. President Obama won the election fairly, by a large margin. So, he and his ilk must paint President Obama as "other"...as something foreign and illegitimate.

In a nutshell, he's a sore loser. What they couldn't win at the ballot box, they'll try to destroy by smears and innuendo. It's tribalism at its "finest".

Not at all. I am very much against his policies though.

Anytime the President, the Congress, or the Supreme Court signs/interprets laws, I'm interested and like to discuss history and politics. I just so happen to disagree with most of his views, the guys is a socialist after all. Keep in mind his approval rating is below 50% now too. So it appears a majority of Americans are not too pleased with this guy. I'm just more vocal about it.

And those of us who voted for Bush in 2000 had to listen for 4 years about how he stole the election. So please, take the sore loser crap somewhere else. I've never said the guy didn't win, I just pointed out his wife said his home country was Kenya.

[1bad65]

I would like to see 1bad65 address this instead of ignoring it.

Address what? :confused:

Maybe I did miss a question he asked. If so, forgive me. I must have gotten hung up on him repeatedly bringing up race and missed the question(s).

[1bad65]

Obama has ties to that country since his father's family is from there! Kenyans know that and Obama, as an Americas, is acknowledged as being born is USA.
Just as an American (obviosuly recent) of Serb origin will consider Serbia his home as opposed to Croatia or Bulgaria.
I am sure you realize Americans of different backgrounds express solidarity in many ways in the reverence of where their parents were born. If you are a recent immigrant, it is different from one who came to USA at the turn of the century (e,g 19th century) who are further removed from their roots than the former!

Ok, fine. Let's say you are right, for the sake of argument.

What about his mother's side? She is American. If he was born here, and is half American origin, why would his wife say Kenya is his home country when he is half Kenyan origin, but wasn't born there? Hmmm.....

[mawali]

Ok, fine. Let's say you are right, for the sake of argument.

What about his mother's side? She is American. If he was born here, and is half American origin, why would his wife say Kenya is his home country when he is half Kenyan origin, but wasn't born there? Hmmm.....

Come on, my friend,
We all know that people of bi-racial ethnicity are usually affixed the ethnic group of the 'minority' parent as opposed to that of European ethnicity. If the European ethnicity is more pronounced then that is a different matter.

[SanHeChuan]

I'm not going to get into this with you. You have repeatedly brought up race, while I brought up the Constitution.

Put it this way: If what I posted about him being from Kenya is racist, then I'm as much a racist as the Founding Fathers. They made the rule, after all.

Your remark about the constitution and the founding fathers is irrelevant to this conversation unless YOU’RE saying that Obama was not born in the United States.


So, she misspoke? Did she tell you that? Do you have her on record stating that? Or are you just making things up, again. :rolleyes:

She misspoke in the context of this argument. As you are taking her statement to mean that Obama was not born in the United States, which is not the meaning she intended, because obviously he was born in the United States. If that was what she meant then she did misspeak because he was born in the United States.


I'm really sick of this crap that if you criticize Obama, you're a racist.


I didn’t call you a racist I called you a Xenophobe. AND I didn’t call you that because you criticize Obama I called you a that because you disparaged the mans ancestry.

[1bad65]

Come on, my friend,
We all know that people of bi-racial ethnicity are usually affixed the ethnic group of the 'minority' parent as opposed to that of European ethnicity. If the European ethnicity is more pronounced then that is a different matter.



I don't know about you, but I don't label people like that.

I will say this; I've never seen anybody say their "home country" is a country other than the one they were born in.

[1bad65]

Your remark about the constitution and the founding fathers is irrelevant to this conversation unless YOU’RE saying that Obama was not born in the United States.

And you bringing in race was relevant? :rolleyes:

Please explain how the Constitution is irrelevant when it says the President must be a natural born citizen, and we are discussing whether Obama was a natural born citizen? :confused:


She misspoke in the context of this argument. As you are taking her statement to mean that Obama was not born in the United States, which is not the meaning she intended, because obviously he was born in the United States. If that was what she meant then she did misspeak because he was born in the United States.

Then show me! I asked for you to show me where she said she misspoke, and you did not.

You can't just keep making things up, you're getting ridiculous.


I didn’t call you a racist I called you a Xenophobe. AND I didn’t call you that because you criticize Obama I called you a that because you disparaged the mans ancestry.

Bull****. I never disparaged his ancestry. You said I did, but of course you had to make up words I didn't say to back up your false assertions.

[SanHeChuan]

And you bringing in race was relevant? :rolleyes:

Please explain how the Constitution is irrelevant when it says the President must be a natural born citizen, and we are discussing whether Obama was a natural born citizen? :confused:

Because Xenophobia and Racism are similar, and neither is acceptable.

So that is what you are saying, you’re a BIRTHER. HAHAHAHA! :rolleyes:


Then show me! I asked for you to show me where she said she misspoke, and you did not.

You can't just keep making things up, you're getting ridiculous.

The fact that you think her comment means he is not a natural born U.S. Citizen is what is RIDICULOUS here.


Bull****. I never disparaged his ancestry. You said I did, but of course you had to make up words I didn't say to back up your false assertions.

I'm not making things up I'm holding up the mirror to show you what you read like. There is subtext to your words and it's not pretty. If you are not aware of it and do not intend it then I would suggest you heed our protests and change the language instead of trying to defend it.

Do you deny that you meant to disrespect the President of the United States of America when you referred to him as “the Kenyan”?

[Reality_Check]

Address what? :confused:


Please explain how the Constitution is irrelevant when it says the President must be a natural born citizen, and we are discussing whether Obama was a natural born citizen? :confused:


So that is what you are saying, you’re a BIRTHER. HAHAHAHA! :rolleyes:

Well, I guess that answers my question.

[1bad65]

Because Xenophobia and Racism are similar, and neither is acceptable.

So that is what you are saying, you’re a BIRTHER. HAHAHAHA! :rolleyes:

I don't label people, while obviously you do.

I'll say this on the topic--At first, I figured the people saying he wasn't born here were the typical wingnuts who see conspiracies on every corner. Then I looked at evidence, I actually took the time to research what they saying, rather than be like you and label them and write them off. They have some relevant points. For example, he went by another last name. His father was not a citizen. His early education took place overseas. His wife's quote. The fact he has not released his birth certificate. There is a good bit of evidence here. Is it enough to sway me? Not yet, but I am really starting to wonder if indeed on this subject, where there is smoke there is fire. But right now, I still can't say they have proven he wasn't born here.

And If I'm a "birther" or "xenophopic", so were the Founders. So while I despise labels that simple-minded people use, it's not exactly an insult to be called that.


The fact that you think her comment means he is not a natural born U.S. Citizen is what is RIDICULOUS here.

There you go making up things up again. :rolleyes:


I'm not making things up I'm holding up the mirror to show you what you read like. There is subtext to your words and it's not pretty. If you are not aware of it and do not intend it then I would suggest you heed our protests and change the language instead of trying to defend it.

So, you aren't going to stop making up things I didn't actually say, and then trying to say I said them, right?


Do you deny that you meant to disrespect the President of the United States of America when you referred to him as “the Kenyan”?

I openly said it was a "dig". I did however, explain the context I used it in.

I actually didn't need you to 'interpret' that one. ;)

[1bad65]

Well, I guess that answers my question.

Good thing we have San over here to tell people what I really mean, what I really think, and what I really meant to type. :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

So 1bad, what is it about Obama's policies specifically that has you riled?
Also, which of his policies in particular are bugging you so much that you can't get on board with him being your president?

Please elaborate, I don't think you ever have gone on about anything other than:

1) he's kenyan!

2) he doesn't have a birth certificate!

3) he had an affair!

4) he has death panels!

5) he is the antichrist!

and so on. I don't think you have ever addressed any policy point as being wrong or poorly thought out and why.

feel free to point me at any argument you've given about Obama's Policies to date and what is wrong with them.
You tend to stick to regurgitating rush limbaugh content or something you saw on fox. You have yet to demonstrate and actual knowledge or understanding of current administration policies towards anything.

But by all means, please discuss policy flaw, why it's flawed and what would be a better solution. Then, after presenting your better idea, do a hand off via mail with your representative!

easy!

[1bad65]

So 1bad, what is it about Obama's policies specifically that has you riled?

Also, which of his policies in particular are bugging you so much that you can't get on board with him being your president?

You tend to stick to regurgitating rush limbaugh content or something you saw on fox. You have yet to demonstrate and actual knowledge or understanding of current administration policies towards anything.

Despite you typing this, which shows you have either not read many of my previous posts or you have failed to comprehend them, I will answer.

He is pro-abortion.
He has ran up record national debt.
His healthcare plan is way too socialist leaning for me.
He is against the War on Terror.
He is not supporting Israel as I feel the US should be.
He lied about not letting lobbyists into his Administration.
He wants to "spread the weath around".
He (and Congress) are printing way too much money right now, ie inflation.
He signed into law tougher EPA MPG standards on cars while he himself drove a HEMI-powered vehicle that did not meet the requirements he demanded of others.
He refuses to cut taxes when that is exactly what the economy needs right now.
He is following the failed policies of FDR.
He was for the bailouts of GM and Chrysler.
He took over a controlling share of GM.
He wasted billions of tax dollars on a stimulus plan that actually drove up unemployment.


But by all means, please discuss policy flaw, why it's flawed and what would be a better solution. Then, after presenting your better idea, do a hand off via mail with your representative!

easy!

Hope you are happy with my answer.

As to dealing with my Representative, my Rep is Lloyd 'Bolshevik' Doggett. Doggett is one of the most liberal guys in Congress. So it would be a complete waste of time.

[SanHeChuan]

I don't label people, while obviously you do.

"The Kenyan" is a Label. Here is another one Hypocrite; a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.


The fact he has not released his birth certificate.

Obama's Birth certificate (http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/Obama%20Birth%20Certificate/BO%20Birth%20Certificate.jpg)


And If I'm a "birther" or "xenophopic", so were the Founders. So while I despise labels that simple-minded people use, it's not exactly an insult to be called that.

Not allowing a U.S Citizen by birth hold the office of president like the founders did is not the same as disparaging the man because of his ancestry like you did.


So, you aren't going to stop making up things I didn't actually say, and then trying to say I said them, right?

I didn't alter your posts.


I openly said it was a "dig". I did however, explain the context I used it in.

So, you think calling him a Kenyan is an insult. Since he is ONLY Kenyan through heritage by way of his father, you are indeed insulting the man’s ancestry.

[Drake]

Please explain to me how President Obama is against the war on terror. Really.

[David Jamieson]

He is pro-abortion. it's law in the usa, by proxy, so do you

He has ran up record national debt. not as much as his predeccesor and in fact he did it to create stimulus to bail out the economy which his predecessor destroyed

His healthcare plan is way too socialist leaning for me. what part? how familiar are you with it?

He is against the War on Terror. what exactly is that and who is the enemy?

He is not supporting Israel as I feel the US should be. Israel is still there, they'll be fine and they receive plenty of US support

He lied about not letting lobbyists into his Administration. did he? are their active lobbyists in his administration or are you talking about former lobbyists?

He wants to "spread the weath around". what does that mean to you? what do you think that means to him?

He (and Congress) are printing way too much money right now, ie inflation. the fed prints your money

He signed into law tougher EPA MPG standards on cars while he himself drove a HEMI-powered vehicle that did not meet the requirements he demanded of others. he has his own car? where?

He refuses to cut taxes when that is exactly what the economy needs right now. which taxes should he cut?

He is following the failed policies of FDR. which ones are those?

He was for the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. good thing they are paying back their loans with interest eh? Every president gets involved in corporate welfare at some level, as long as it gets paid back, it seems to be ok with everyone

He took over a controlling share of GM. actually, you did. As in the american people and you're gonna have to give that back right away as the health of those comapnies improves

He wasted billions of tax dollars on a stimulus plan that actually drove up unemployment. how so? how did the stimulus plan increase unemployment, please explain



anyway, no, your answers are lame, unclear, vague and not good enough to have you regarded as anything more than a mudslinger and a divisionary goon from the right wing. lol

Look how flaky all your answers are. Find any of those in any predominant threads of yours?

I didn't think so. Most of your stuff is whining about the same lame stuff that fox and limbaugh go on about. It's like you turn off your tv and then sit in front of your computer, in of all places here at kfm instead of some pundit blog of arguing and start laying down your weird world view which comes across as myopic, vitriolic right wing blathering.

so, can you actually be specific?

[Reality_Check]

He is pro-abortion.
He has ran up record national debt.
His healthcare plan is way too socialist leaning for me.
He is against the War on Terror.
He is not supporting Israel as I feel the US should be.
He lied about not letting lobbyists into his Administration.
He wants to "spread the weath around".
He (and Congress) are printing way too much money right now, ie inflation.
He signed into law tougher EPA MPG standards on cars while he himself drove a HEMI-powered vehicle that did not meet the requirements he demanded of others.
He refuses to cut taxes when that is exactly what the economy needs right now.
He is following the failed policies of FDR.
He was for the bailouts of GM and Chrysler.
He took over a controlling share of GM.
He wasted billions of tax dollars on a stimulus plan that actually drove up unemployment.

David has addressed these, I'd just like to highlight a couple.

Inflation was 2.3% in March, i.e. low.

Regarding taxes:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found....

...Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

[1bad65]

Obama's Birth certificate (http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/Obama%20Birth%20Certificate/BO%20Birth%20Certificate.jpg)

That is not a birth certificate.

This guy does a good job of explaining the difference in that document and an actual birth certificate: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/05/11/ac.obama.birth.cnn?hpt=C2


Not allowing a U.S Citizen by birth hold the office of president like the founders did is not the same as disparaging the man because of his ancestry like you did.

I've not desparaged anyone's ancestry. You just keep saying I have.


I didn't alter your posts.

I never said you did. I said you are saying I said things that I did not post/type/etc.


So, you think calling him a Kenyan is an insult. Since he is ONLY Kenyan through heritage by way of his father, you are indeed insulting the man’s ancestry.

Again, I did not say that.

I said it was a "dig". Can you read that? Do I need to type it out 100 times for you? :rolleyes:

I also posted the context in which I used that term as a "dig".

[1bad65]

Please explain to me how President Obama is against the war on terror. Really.

He set up a pull out date. That gave our enemies fuel for their fire. You don't tell your enemies when you will quit.

"American commanders, worried about increased violence in the wake of Iraq's inconclusive elections, are now reconsidering the pace of a major troop pullout this summer, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The withdrawal of the first major wave of troops is expected to be delayed by about a month, the officials said. Waiting much longer could endanger President Barack Obama's goal of reducing the force level from 92,000 to 50,000 troops by Aug. 31."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_troop_withdrawal

[Drake]

He set up a pull out date. That gave our enemies fuel for their fire. You don't tell your enemies when you will quit.

"American commanders, worried about increased violence in the wake of Iraq's inconclusive elections, are now reconsidering the pace of a major troop pullout this summer, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The withdrawal of the first major wave of troops is expected to be delayed by about a month, the officials said. Waiting much longer could endanger President Barack Obama's goal of reducing the force level from 92,000 to 50,000 troops by Aug. 31."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_troop_withdrawal

That has been discussed long before he was elected. Iraq is doing nothing to help GWOT, because before we went in AQI didn't even exist.

[1bad65]

anyway, no, your answers are lame, unclear, vague and not good enough to have you regarded as anything more than a mudslinger and a divisionary goon from the right wing. lol

Then dealing with you is a waste of time.

For example, Obama set record deficits. It is what it is. Your response: "Not as much as his predecessor..." If you can't accept facts, I'm wasting my time.

I refuse to argue mathematics with someone who cannot accept 2+2=4, for example. You may hate Bush, hell he wasn't my favorite President. But the FACT is that the debt under Obama is higher than any other President in our history. Period.


And I'm not gonna touch your other 'arguments'. You asked what I had a problem with in his policies. I gave you answers. Now you say those answers are wrong. :rolleyes: When you ask for opinions, you get opinions. And then you still say I really don't really have my own opinions, I just feel how Limbaugh/Bush/the GOP/etc tell me what I feel. You want to discuss things like an adult, fine. Respect me as an adult then. I've never once during our many discussions said to you 'Well, you don't really believe this. You just are a mouthpiece for Obama and Pelosi'. I respect you as an adult with ideas, morals, stances, etc. I only ask you do the same of me.

[Drake]

I'm at a point where I'm only reading like every other sentence of this thread...if even that.

[1bad65]

That has been discussed long before he was elected. Iraq is doing nothing to help GWOT, because before we went in AQI didn't even exist.

Yes, I understand that is part of the debate. I just don't feel he is handling it right. He sends mixed signals. He has gave a pull-out date, and been (to be honest) kind of anti-Israel. This, imo, sends the wrong message to those out to harm us.

I was just asked what policies of his I had issues with, and that is one. Obviously you don't disagree with Obama on that issue, and I do. But I do thank you for at least accepting I feel that way instead of just saying I really can't form opinions on my own.

[1bad65]

Inflation was 2.3% in March, i.e. low.

Actually, inflation was UP 2% in March. You may want to check your sources on that.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100503/bs_afp/useconomyinflation_20100503125400

"Americans saw prices rise two percent in the year to March according to the Commerce Department's personal consumption expenditures index published on Monday.

The figure, which is closely watched by the Federal Reserve as a sign of broader inflation levels, is approaching the maximum the central bank normally considers sustainable."

Source:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.f4ca4a183df2102e9ad9338f1c9b7c7 5.171&show_article=1

And here the Fed admits it will increase in 2011:

"Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser said prices may rise 2.5 percent in 2011, a rate well above central bankers’ preferred range, and cautioned against complacency on inflation.

“The economy may be at greater risk of inflation than the conventional wisdom indicates,” Plosser said in a speech yesterday in New York. “While inflation expectations appear to remain anchored, we should not become sanguine about our credibility. It can be easily lost.”

The bank president’s inflation forecast for 2011 exceeds central bank officials’ long-run preferred range of 1.7 percent to 2 percent, and contrasts with the concerns of some officials and economists that the economic slump may provoke a broad decline in prices."

Source:
http://preview.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive_en10&sid=aKsf3mmmoaCg

[Drake]

Yes, I understand that is part of the debate. I just don't feel he is handling it right. He sends mixed signals. He has gave a pull-out date, and been (to be honest) kind of anti-Israel. This, imo, sends the wrong message to those out to harm us.

I was just asked what policies of his I had issues with, and that is one. Obviously you don't disagree with Obama on that issue, and I do. But I do thank you for at least accepting I feel that way instead of just saying I really can't form opinions on my own.

The problem is that Israel is making things worse. So is Hamas, so don't think I'm taking their side either. Point is, a lot of innocent people are dying, and both sides are engaged in acts of terrorism. Israel is turning into that little brother who keeps getting in trouble. Sure, he's family, but man I wish he'd stop screwing up. Again, the tension between the two countries has been intensifying before Pres Obama was elected. It wasn't always roses before, you know.

As for Iraq... we were basically told to leave by Iraq's government. Like it or not, we have to agree to that. To stay against their will would be wrong on numerous levels, and also an act of occupation and highly illegal. We can't stay there "until the job's done" because it isn't our decision. The decision belongs to the people of Iraq. Pres. Obama didn't set the date. Iraq did.

Besides, we need these resources in Afghanistan, which, despite being the origin of those who attacked us, has been virtually ignored.

I'm still waiting for our mission there. Been waiting since late 2001.

[1bad65]

I'm at a point where I'm only reading like every other sentence of this thread...if even that.

Well, if you only read the posts that were sourced, you would only be reading mine. ;)

Of course you can just read San's posts and he will tell you what he thinks, and what I really think as well!

[1bad65]

As for Iraq... we were basically told to leave by Iraq's government. Like it or not, we have to agree to that.

Not to be a jerk, but did you read my link about the pullout?

From that link:

"In the meantime, the U.S. Embassy is looking for ways to push Iraqis to resolve the deadlock. Iraq's political leaders are only just now taking preliminary steps toward creating a new government, which has been stalled by ballot challenges and bickering over whether to disqualify winning candidates accused of having links to the outlawed Baathist Party."

If Iraq still hasn't created a new Government yet, how can their Government be telling us to leave? :confused:

[Drake]

Not to be a jerk, but did you read my link about the pullout?

From that link:

"In the meantime, the U.S. Embassy is looking for ways to push Iraqis to resolve the deadlock. Iraq's political leaders are only just now taking preliminary steps toward creating a new government, which has been stalled by ballot challenges and bickering over whether to disqualify winning candidates accused of having links to the outlawed Baathist Party."

If Iraq still hasn't created a new Government yet, how can their Government be telling us to leave? :confused:

Dude. They established a new government years ago. This is a deadlock over the recent election, not establishment of their government. WAAAAAY out of context.

I was in Iraq during their first election, FYI. FOUR YEARS AGO.

[1bad65]

Dude. They established a new government years ago. This is a deadlock over the recent election, not establishment of their government. WAAAAAY out of context.

I was in Iraq during their first election, FYI. FOUR YEARS AGO.

Ok, I understand. But honest, from what I gathered, the plan has always been for us to pull out when we felt the Iraqi Government could stand on its own. So we couldn't just set a date, as there are alot of facotrs/variables/etc. But Obama set a date, and when he set the date experts in this field had not said the Iraqi Government could stand on it's own yet. Is this correct?

[Drake]

Ok, I understand. But honest, from what I gathered, the plan has always been for us to pull out when we felt the Iraqi Government could stand on its own. So we couldn't just set a date, as there are alot of facotrs/variables/etc. But Obama set a date, and when he set the date experts in this field had not said the Iraqi Government could stand on it's own yet. Is this correct?

Actually, Iraq set the date. It's not our country. We leave when they tell us to.

[Drake]

Also, we cannot sustain two theaters of operation. We were at the breaking point anyway, with so many deployments, all of our top commanders were warning the POTUS that we could not continue operations the way we were doing them. It simply wasn't logistically possible. We were losing very experienced and talented people because they were sick of being deployed every other year, essentially ruining their chance at having any sort of family.

[Reality_Check]

Actually, inflation was UP 2% in March. You may want to check your sources on that.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100503/bs_afp/useconomyinflation_20100503125400

"Americans saw prices rise two percent in the year to March according to the Commerce Department's personal consumption expenditures index published on Monday.

The figure, which is closely watched by the Federal Reserve as a sign of broader inflation levels, is approaching the maximum the central bank normally considers sustainable."

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm


Consumer Price Index - March 2010

On a seasonally adjusted basis, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.1 percent in March, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the index increased 2.3 percent before seasonal adjustment.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation-rates/inflation-up-2-3-from-last-year-consumer-prices-rise-0-1-in-march/1000690/


Inflation remained tame in March, as U.S. consumer prices edged only slightly higher due mostly to higher fresh fruits and vegetables costs, the Labor Department reported Wednesday.

The Consumer Price Index, the government’s most closely watched reading for inflation at the consumer level, rose 0.1% in March. February’s CPI was flat and marked the first time prices had not advanced since March 2009.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530286


Inflation was subdued in March with prices up 0.1%, as expected, due mostly to higher costs for fruits and vegetables, the Labor Dept. said. The government's closely watched core CPI was unchanged, in line with estimates. The core rate is up 1.1% from last year, the smallest gain since early 2004. That may give the Federal Reserve reason to maintain low interest rates.

Try again.


And here the Fed admits it will increase in 2011:

"Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser said prices may rise 2.5 percent in 2011, a rate well above central bankers’ preferred range, and cautioned against complacency on inflation.

“The economy may be at greater risk of inflation than the conventional wisdom indicates,” Plosser said in a speech yesterday in New York.

Gee, I don't see the word will in those quotes. I see the word may. Just because something "may" happen doesn't mean that it "will" happen. Reading is fundamental.

I notice you ignored the part in my post about taxes. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Try again.

So we both have sources that disagree. OK.

Look at it this way, can you show one civilization/coutry.etc that printed money in large quntities it did not have and didn't have inflation?


Gee, I don't see the word will in those quotes. I see the word may. Just because something "may" happen doesn't mean that it "will" happen. Reading is fundamental.

I posted a guy with experience saying it may happen. Whats the problem there? Of course as I pointed out earlier, I have history on my side. When countries print paper money thay don't really have, inflation is sure to follow unless they get their debt under control. And Obama is ramping up spending! :eek:

[1bad65]

I notice you ignored the part in my post about taxes. :rolleyes:

I'd like the source of that part.

I want to see the source and read how they came up with the percentage they did.

Keep in mind, we just recently found out almost 50% of Americans are paying 0% in income taxes. That is an all time high. So you have the largest percent of Americans in history paying 0%, and thus bringing the average way down.

I'd wager that the percentage of taxes WORKING AMERICANS are paying is at or near all time highs.

[Reality_Check]

I posted a guy with experience saying it may happen. Whats the problem there?

Nice backpedal attempt. :rolleyes:

You stated:


And here the Fed admits it will increase in 2011:

As I stated "may" and "will" do not mean the same thing.

[Reality_Check]

I want to see the source and read how they came up with the percentage they did.

Keep in mind, we just recently found out almost 50% of Americans are paying 0% in income taxes. That is an all time high. So you have the largest percent of Americans in history paying 0%, and thus bringing the average way down.

I'd wager that the percentage of taxes WORKING AMERICANS are paying is at or near all time highs.

Well, you'd have to ask USA Today for the source.

Regarding your oft stated claim about income taxes:


As much as I tried to stay away...

Your article says nothing about payroll taxes, which make up the majority of the middle class tax burden. It's also dated October 13, 2008

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=882634&postcount=794



I'm referring to income taxes. They are BY FAR the largest percentage of taxes the middle class pays.

Actually, no (page 19, Chart 5)....

http://www.kc.frb.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/PDF/4q06davig.pdf

From my link: "Since payroll taxes are paid only up to a certain amount of income, payroll taxes comprise a larger share of the tax liability for low- and middle-income households versus high-income households. Mitrusi and Poterba (2000) estimated that payroll taxes were higher than federal income taxes for 44 percent of all U.S. households in 1979, and that percentage increased to 67 percent in 1999."

Have you looked at the actual stimulus bill?

Enjoy (tax package): http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/hr1_legtext_cr.pdf

Here is a summary of the tax plan for individuals: http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus/tax-cuts-for-individuals

Please see this article regarding the "Making Work Pay" credit: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BU071634SD.DTL&type=business

I see nothing about mailing checks out.


Once again you are stating that 40% of Americans pay no income tax. Let's stipulate that. However, I've already shown that:

"Since payroll taxes are paid only up to a certain amount of income, payroll taxes comprise a larger share of the tax liability for low- and middle-income households versus high-income households. Mitrusi and Poterba (2000) estimated that payroll taxes were higher than federal income taxes for 44 percent of all U.S. households in 1979, and that percentage increased to 67 percent in 1999."

So, the implication that these people do not pay into the system is suspect.


I'm talking about income tax, which is the biggest tax those who pay it pay.

Ah...but for low to middle income Americans the payroll tax is "the biggest tax those who pay it pay."



RC,

Why are you hammering me on payroll taxes? :confused:

I'm on record saying they should be abolished.

Just trying to put the stake into the heart of the "people who don't pay income taxes don't contribute" canard that you have been pushing.


Well Obama is for 'The People'. He is just for the people who don't pay income taxes and who got themselves into financial messes by signing ARMs on houses they couldn't afford.

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=882613#post882613


I'm referring to income taxes. They are BY FAR the largest percentage of taxes the middle class pays.


Speaking of taxes, how do you feel about everyone paying income taxes?

I'm all for it. As it is now, we have millions of people who do not have to pay any income taxes, yet getting to vote for representatives who set tax policy that will not affect them, but will affect millions of others who are actually contributing.


I looked it up for you. And it looks like you don't even have to pick the check up, they are gonna send it to you. ;)

"Barack Obama says he will give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut but does not mention that his plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes - payments that critics say look "suspiciously like welfare."

Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/obama-tax-cut-refunds-those-who-dont-pay/


Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.


That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.


I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.


"During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

People who don't pay income taxes do pay payroll taxes. Hence, they contribute. As such they should certainly have a voice in tax policy, no?

You always make claims regarding income tax, yet you never mention payroll taxes. Hmm...is that because it undermines your "we are over taxed!" claim?

In addition, if more people are paying less in income taxes, doesn't that mean taxes have gone down?

[Reality_Check]

Continuation of the previous post.


Well, this is interesting:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22340.html

In the rush to file their federal income tax forms for tax year 2006, Americans may not look closely enough at their W-2s and may not realize the true economic incidence of payroll taxes; they may not realize that they probably paid more in federal payroll taxes than in federal income taxes last year. Most economists agree that virtually all of the payroll tax burden is borne by workers, even that portion that is legally paid by the employer. And so when we count that as a tax on the worker, we begin to realize that this 15.3 percent tax rate can be higher than the income tax rate that these individuals are paying; most of them lie below the Social Security cap ($97,500) and fall in the 10 and 15 percent taxable income brackets (with possibly some income being taxed at the 25 percent rate). Only for high-income earners or those who earn most of their income in non-wage form will their income tax burden exceed their payroll tax burden.

The Tax Foundation recently released a Fiscal Fact (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22287.html) looking at how different types of taxes weigh differently on different income groups. Among the study's highlights (from 2004 data):

For households in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale, the average payroll tax burden per household for tax year 2004 was $917, while the average federal income tax burden per household (excluding refundable portion of EITC) was $171.

For the middle income group, the average payroll taxes paid per household was nearly double the average federal income tax.

For the bottom 40 percent of households, property taxes, payroll taxes, and state/local general sales taxes was each a larger hit on households than the federal individual income tax.

The federal individual income tax is much more progressive than state/local income taxes. As a quick illustration, for every dollar in federal individual income taxes paid by the middle income group, the top quintile paid $7.86 in federal individual income taxes. At the state/local individual income tax level, that number was $5.36.

Individual income taxes at both the federal and state/local level drive the bulk of the progressivity in the entire tax system. As a quick illustration, for every dollar of total taxes paid by the middle income group in 2004 at all levels of government, the top quintile paid $3.87 in taxes. However, excluding all individual income taxes, that number drops to around $2.82.

The bottom quintile pays more in taxes on tobacco and alcohol (at all levels) than in federal individual income taxes, even after excluding the refundable portion of EITC.

For more on how different types of households are hit harder by different types of taxes, check out the full working paper (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2282.html) on which these numbers are based.

http://www.urban.org/publications/1001065.html

Two-Thirds of Tax Units Pay More Payroll Tax Than Income Tax

April 15 is synonymous with taxes in the United States, but most Americans actually pay more payroll taxes than federal income taxes. In 2006 workers and employers each paid 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $94,200 of earnings and 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. While the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split evenly between workers and employers, most economists believe that the employer tax usually translates into lower wages, so workers bear the full burden of the tax. Thus, the total payroll tax rate equals 15.3 percent of earnings for most workers.

About two-thirds of taxpayers owed more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes in 2006. Many households (including most retirees) do not have any wage income and thus pay no payroll tax. Among households with wage earners, 86 percent have higher payroll taxes than income taxes, including almost all of those with incomes less than $40,000 and 94 percent of those with incomes less than $100,000. If only the employee portion of payroll taxes is considered, 44 percent of taxpayers and 56 percent of wage earners pay more payroll tax than income tax, including nearly 80 percent of earners with incomes less than $50,000.

[Reality_Check]

So we both have sources that disagree. OK.

Yeah, but my first source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the entity that measures inflation. So...

[David Jamieson]

Yeah, but my first source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the entity that measures inflation. So...

so you win. TO put it simply, 1bad's sources can almost always be safely regarded as overly biased and not supported by facts and evidence and instead littered with hearsay and supposition. :p

[1bad65]

You always make claims regarding income tax, yet you never mention payroll taxes. Hmm...is that because it undermines your "we are over taxed!" claim?

I've used the term "total taxes" multiple times on here.


In addition, if more people are paying less in income taxes, doesn't that mean taxes have gone down?

We are? :confused: When did we last get an income tax cut? :confused:

And no, it doesn't mean they (total taxes) went down. Travis County (where I live) has been raising property taxes at higher rates recently.

[1bad65]

so you win. TO put it simply, 1bad's sources can almost always be safely regarded as overly biased and not supported by facts and evidence and instead littered with hearsay and supposition. :p

Oh bull****. Prove it.

[1bad65]

Let me make something clear on taxes.

Working Americans who actually pay income taxes are paying higher rates in total taxes than they have historically. Of course if you average in the ~47% of Americans who pay 0 income taxes into the equation, the average is going to come out lower. I'm not counting the comsumers in our society, obviously they don't even pay income taxes, I'm counting the producers.