Newsweek Magazine: Obama`s Gotta Go [Pic+]

Submitted by: fancylad 5 years ago in

Judging from the cover of this week"s Newsweek, it looks like their love affair with Obama is over.
There are 78 comments:
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]would be to do it on a smaller level, i.e. municipal, maybe state[/quote]
Now you`re speaking my kind of language! I am a federalist and states rights advocate afterall. If it was up to me, there would be no federal income tax at all. The federal government would levy a flat tax against all of the states and the states would collect taxes as they see fit.

I just don`t agree that we would necessarily need to migrate the best method to the federal government. The states would observe others and adopt the best policies.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: While I`m not necessarily saying that trying new things is bad, I`m just saying that something as big as the US economy might be something too big to risk with. Also, being a scientist, I`m more convinced by empirical evidence and things that can be tested. So what I would do, if I were wanting to test out a new system, would be to do it on a smaller level, i.e. municipal, maybe state. Then if that microcosm model succeeded or was better, you could grow it to the mesocosm and more.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]You can`t just say it will and then be sure that it will unless you`re a genie or something[/quote]

I think this would be a good time to state that I actually happen to be a genie.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: It was supposed to be funny... The problem with your logic is that there is no room for improvement - ever. You cannot try anything new because "what if it doesn`t work out?" Everything in this world includes some risks and some benefits. If we are too afraid to take the risks, then we are doomed to continue maintaining status quo. We never improve.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Excuse me while I lol. What I meant was exactly that: What if it doesn`t? You can`t just say it will and then be sure that it will unless you`re a genie or something. Your only response now is that if it doesn`t, then you`ll "try something else." Well what if that doesn`t work as you think it will? How long can the US economy continue to exist off of your assumptions that may or may not pan out?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: How wouldn`t accountability go up? Even if it failed, we would try something else. Keep trying until you find something that works... Isn`t that what we are supposed to do?

If a woman is beaten by her husband everyday and has been for many years, is she supposed to just say "it is what it is..."? No, she is supposed to leave him and keep trying to find a husband that will treat her well. We should be leaving our husbands here, because this relationship is abusive and isn`t working.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]The point is that spending would go down because accountability would go up. Therefore, the tax would fall as well. [/quote]
That`s your assumption, with no basis in fact. What would you do if accountability didn`t go up?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: ... and because your numbers are wrong - as I`ve also indicated in previous posts.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]However we weren`t talking about business, just median income specifically per household. This doesn`t even account for things like sales tax and other ones. So I`d like to see you explain how, with no deductions, a family making less than $50,000 is supposed to pay $20,000 in income tax alone.[/quote]

See my previous comment(s). Spending would fall as more people become invested in the game.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
However we weren`t talking about business, just median income specifically per household. This doesn`t even account for things like sales tax and other ones. So I`d like to see you explain how, with no deductions, a family making less than $50,000 is supposed to pay $20,000 in income tax alone.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: You still miss the overall point; until you grasp that, we`re just treading water. The point is that spending would go down because accountability would go up. Therefore, the tax would fall as well.

Like I said before, you`re focused entirely on the revenue aspect of this, and not at all consider the problem: spending; let`s address spending. How do we do this? Make wasteful and excessive spending antagonistic to more people.

How do we make wasteful government spending antagonistic to the population? The only way I can think of is to get more people involved. How do we get more people involved? Make them pay into the system.

If you use the roads, bridges, public system in general, then you should pay for them. The free ride nonsense (~51%!) needs to stop.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Nevermind, I thought I had seen you write that people without an income are still responsible but now I can`t find it, so forget that one.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: >40% was just the median income, that says nothing of those earning less than the median income. And how is someone without a job supposed to pay $10,365 worth of tax? It`s also comforting that someone who made $1 million would pay only 1% of their total income as income tax. A flat tax as you suggest is just ludicrous. People at the bottom would drown, and those below the poverty line would have something like $5000 to spend for the whole year.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I didn`t use TOTAL population. I used TOTAL ADULT population. It`s in there, you just have a hard time reading and comprehending sometimes. I would expect all adults to pay this regardless of their employment status.

Also, my tax rate is almost perfectly 40% (self-employed must pay the other half of FICA). Nice try though pleading to the population.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Nice numbers you used there, too bad they`re slightly wrong. You can`t use total US population. According to US Department of Labor - Bureau of labor statistics, for 2008 (I had a hard time finding more recent data, but hopefully it hasn`t changed too much) there were 120,589,850 employed citizens. The revenue from personal income tax for 2008 was $1.25 trillion. Now, that means that each working adult must contribute $10,365 in income tax to equal the current income tax situation, close to the number you cited. Median household income in the US in 2008 was about $50,000. In 2005 (again, hard time finding data for one year) the census reported that 42% of ALL households were two income (this also takes into account seniors etc. so the actual percent is likely larger). So I`m sure the median Americans who would pay $20,000 in taxes on $50,000 worth of income would like to thank you for their >40% tax rate.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Now, if we remove half the collection of FICA taxes (currently businesses pay half and we didn`t include that in our calculation), Excise taxes, customs duties, estate and gift taxes, and other misc. receipts then the current status quote budget becomes 1.6665t. Per US adult, that leaves us paying $7,104.67 each annually to the government.

For comparison, a single person with no additional deductions and credits would pay ~$7,145.00 annually with an income of $53,000.

So, given this system, to maintain status quo, each adult (18 and over) would be responsible for paying $7,104.67 annually.

Then, let`s get rid of the fighting in Afghanistan ($108b) - now we are down to $6,644.24 each. I think you can see where I`m going with this.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Nice numbers you used there, too bad they`re slightly wrong. You can`t use total US population. According to US Department of Labor - Bureau of labor statistics, for 2008 (I had a hard time finding more recent data, but hopefully it hasn`t changed too much) there were 120,589,850 employed citizens. The revenue from personal income tax for 2008 was $1.25 trillion. Now, that means that each working adult must contribute $10,365 in income tax to equal the current income tax situation, close to the number you cited. Median household income in the US in 2008 was about $50,000. In 2005 (again, hard time finding data for one year) the census reported that 42% of ALL households were two income (this also takes into account seniors etc. so the actual percent is likely larger). So I`m sure the median Americans who would pay $20,000 in taxes on $50,000 worth of income would like to thank you for their >40% tax rate.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: This wouldn`t be any more of a poll tax than the current income tax system in the US. In both cases, if you have an income and use public works, you are expected to furnish contributions for those services.

Either way, since you want numbers. Using an estimated adult population of 234,564,000 and a TOTAL federal budget of $2.469t each adult would need to contribute $10,525.91. Now, that is status quo, and does not include any contributions from businesses or corporations.

At this point we need to discuss business/corporate taxes. How much should we expect to collect there? As that number increases, the expected contributions from each individual will fall.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: one example of how the usps is losing money and fed ex is doing good is still merely an anecdote. how about YOU provide a scholarly study?

Also, a poll tax, which is basically what you`re arguing for, needs to have a specific value associated with it. you said this would be "arbitrary" but when you`re working with theoretical systems, the only way you fan hope to argue for or against is if you run numbers. You can`t claim more revenue without assigning a specific value.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]Unfounded claim is unfounded. Do you have anything to add besides wishful thinking and abstract concepts that cannot be proven or disproven? It`s exceedingly easy to point out the errors in systems that exist when you can`t see the faults of the theoretical systems you propose.[/quote]

I`d rather suggest an unproven but reasonable approach rather than perpetuate a system that has never worked. If you can provide me with a single instance in which Keynesian economics has been fruitful for the long-term, then you`ll be famous.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Hang on now. I found some things for you to look at.

USPS $5.2b Quarterly Loss
FedEx Still Profitting

As for increasing the amount of people that pay taxes, how would this lead to a drop in revenue? You would be increasing the base considerably.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote](which would drastically increase revenue)[/quote]
Unfounded claim is unfounded. Do you have anything to add besides wishful thinking and abstract concepts that cannot be proven or disproven? It`s exceedingly easy to point out the errors in systems that exist when you can`t see the faults of the theoretical systems you propose.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: As for your references (the one`s I was able to get ahold of at least), it seems that we are running into the same thing - no standard of measurement.

USPS delivers mail on Saturdays - this is probably great for most people. Many people would tend to rate that as excellent (many of these "studies" as well). But it`s also costly and the revenue from Saturday`s does not cover the cost.

We are using different units/standards of measurement here so an argument is futile. I am not interested in debating whether the government can provide more conveniences (they can - they have "unlimited" funds). I am interested in which entity can provide the best "bang for the buck."
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]How the hell did you come to this conclusion?[/quote]
Because I asked you why and you ignored it. Thus I assume you have no response to it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: I have read a few of those references, actually (well parts), but that doesn`t invalidate them or their results. Besides, it`s easy to point out problems with my referencing when you do none of your own.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]And you still haven`t provided any reasons as to why increased revenue and cutting costs are mutually exclusive[/quote]

I never said this... At no point have a stated that increasing revenue is bad. I have stated exclusively that having everyone pay into the system (which would drastically increase revenue) is what I want. How the hell did you come to this conclusion?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: You just went to GovernmentIsGood.com and stole a ton of their references from different articles. Honestly, you can`t even do your own research? I`ve lost a bit of respect for you here. Reference something other than a book (which I can`t read without buying) or editiorial; try referencing a scholarly article.

That was a pretty bad one; I mean, c`mon man.

Also, are you sure you want to go down the "logical fallacy" road again? We`ve both likely committed several already; we can take the time to argue them out here, but honestly, it doesn`t lend any credence to your arguments (or anyone elses). Actively searching and trying to point these out does not make anyone look more intelligent - just petty.

That being said, petty is fun sometimes. So, if you want to, I`m up for it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
And you still haven`t provided any reasons as to why increased revenue and cutting costs are mutually exclusive.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Theodore H. Poister and Gary Henry, “Standards of Excellence: U.S. Residents Evaluations of Local Government Services,” Public Administration Review 54, no. 2 (March 1994)

[quote]I am referring to the ones that do not receive corporate welfare/bailouts and are expected to fund themselves.[/quote]
I see the distinction you are trying to make but that doesn`t prove anything. You`re referencing (without a reference) your own personal thoughts or anecdotal experience. Studies have shown that the notion that business is always better than government to be simply not true.

We *were* talking about cutting costs until we began talking about how efficient businesses vs. governments are at running things, so of course you have to account for the whole picture. Also some of the studies I cite show that private business has been more costly monetarily, so your defense doesn`t hold up.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Barbara Starfield, “Is U.S. Health Really the Best in the World?” Journal of the American Medical Association 284(4), July 26, 2000, pp.483-485.
Paul Krugman, “The Medical Money Pit,” The New York Times, April 15, 2005, p. A19.
Physicians for National Health Care, “National Health Insurance Could Save $286 Billion on Health Care Paperwork,” January 14, 2004. http://www.pnhp.org/news /2004/janaury/national_heath_insu.php.
U.S. Government, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009) Table 478.
Julie Dolan, “The Budget-Minimizing Bureaucrat? Empirical Evidence from the Senior Executive Service,” Public Administration 62, no. 1 (January/February 2002).
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Ask and ye shall receive:
Jacob Weisberg, In Defense of Government (New York: Scribner, 1996), p. 32.
Joseph Nye, et al, Why People Don’t Trust Government (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 62
Charles Goodsell, The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, 4th ed.
Robert Evans and Noralou Roos, “What Is Right about the Canadian Health Care System,” Physicians for National Health Care Newsletter, March 2000.
Bureau of Labor Education, p. 5.
World Health Organization, “WHO Issues New Healthy Life Expectancy Rankings,” June, 4, 2000. http://www.who.int/ inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I am in a unique position in the sense that I own a business (well, co-own) that provides services exclusively to other small businesses.

I work very closely with many small business owners and know for a fact that many of them (myself included) would donate more money to charity given less taxes.

Like I said, perhaps businesses where your from only give back for incentives. In my region, most businesses care deeply for the state of the community.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: When I refer to a "real business" I am referring to the ones that do not receive corporate welfare/bailouts and are expected to fund themselves. I see what you are saying, but it wasn`t an attempt to discredit other businesses, it was an attempt to be more specific (thus not the fallacy you pointed out).

The problem with the studies you reference (without a reference) is that they use a variety of standards to assess against. Some will measure waste management by factors other than cost. In this discussion, we have been very consistent in discussing costs as a monetary value.

For example, some may argue that USPS is best, because FedEx and UPS cannot deliver a letter that cheaply. However, this standard ignores the fact that UPS and Fedex are more successful in terms of profit.

0
Reply
Male 5,811
And if you think I underestimate the generosity of business, then I`d say that you overestimate it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Real businesses[/quote]
I smell a No True Scotsman here. Just because government is involved in some aspects of health care doesn`t mean that they are an inefficient business BECAUSE of government.

[quote]Therefore, a free business will always be more efficient than government. [/quote]
I agree that no profit incentive can make government less efficient in certain areas, but this claim is conservative clap-trap.
There have been many empirical studies examining the efficiency of government bureaucracies versus business in a variety of areas, including refuse collection, electrical utilities, public transportation, water supply systems, and hospital administration. The findings have been mixed. Some studies found business better, others found government better.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I agree that governments are terrible at the administrative level - hence why I support increased accountability. If 100% if the voters paid for the bailouts, neither Bush nor Obama would be re-elected. We`d likely see very high turnover in the House and Senate too.

Real businesses (ones that independent of government assistance/corporate welfare) have excellent administrative departments. Real businesses are concerned with profit only, so they strive to decrease inefficiencies. Without profit, businesses cannot operate. Government has no such incentive, as they can continue to borrow, tax, and print money freely. Therefore, a free business will always be more efficient than government.

I think you underestimate the desire of business owners to give back to the community. Maybe that is how things are done where you are from, but around here, business is community-centric.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Now, I`m not saying that spending shouldn`t be cut, but it`s never cut where it needs to be cut. Plus, what`s wrong with additional revenue? Why can`t a situation exist where you cut spending AND raise income?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Ok, this is what I said about needing more info. Shareholders still could be taxed extra, but nevermind that for now. I agree that curbing spending would be a great thing, but you`re applying rational logic to an irrational scenario. Governments and businesses are both horrible at the administration level. Useless positions, gross over-pay, wasteful spending, etc. is just a part of higher levels of government. To think that you can stamp out wasteful spending would require:
1) For people in government not to be motivated by personal gain
2) A cadre of watchdogs to ensure that pennies are saved
3) A radical re-organization of administrative government, which would inevitably lead to thousands of lost jobs.

Also, as an aside, if you remove deductions then you remove charitable deductions and how much charitable revenue would be lost from that I wonder? If business has no incentive to pay to charity they likely won`t.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I clearly stated that I was talking about individuals only - not corporations/businesses. It is reasonable to expect that they will be exposed to a different set of rules.

I believe you are complicating what is a simple issue. Which do you presume to be the bigger problem - rich people aren`t taxed enough, or spending is out of control? Take into account that we can take 100% of the income from our rich friends and still not balance the budget.

Since spending is the problem, wouldn`t it make more sense to attack spending? The Democratic lack of foresight in the "tax the rich to solve our problems" thought process continues to amaze me. We need to be attacking the problem - spending.

Imagine if you had to write a quarterly check to the government for 5, 10, maybe 20 thousand dollars. Everyone would start paying much more attention to spending.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
*essentially the same entity. And to think that the government will be content taking a measly amount of tax is illogical. Governments will always try to increase revenue, and how long before your flat tax gets raised or other amendments made?
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Handi, you`d rather it be, "Rich, spoiled black guy got us in this mess so blame the Texan"? Who`s in the White House again? No accountability, apparently -- the buck stops anywhere but here.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: I`m sure you can ask any American if they are concerned with how the federal government spends taxes, and I doubt you`d find many at all that say they don`t care or that they care little. You`re oversimplifying the issue. As for elimination of deductions, well that`s going to hurt the middle and lower classes quite a bit. And it still doesn`t address the situation of double taxation.

You see, A “corporation” is only a label for individuals who organize themselves, and hope to earn income, in certain ways. There is no income-earning thing called a “corporation” that exists and earns income above and beyond the people, that is, the stockholder-owners, who constitute that corporation. Therefore, a tax on corporate income is an unjust and “unfair” (if I may use that term) double tax on the same income, as well as a
tax hitting at savings and investment. My point being that you tax the corporation AND the stock-holders, which essential
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: You`re still misunderstanding a lot here. I will try to simplify the ideology for you:

Right now, who do you think is more concerned with government spending: the small business owner who pays $10,000/quarter to the government; or, the welfare recipient who receives an income from the government? I`m happy we`ve now got that out of the way.

Now that this is done, I am suggesting an elimination of all other federal taxes and deductions - everything. There would be only one tax law: you owe the government (x) amount of dollars each year. I believe this should address your other stated concerns.

As for the actual tax amount, it is impossible to tell right now. You can demand an actual figure all you want but it would be arbitrary. Remember, the point of this system is not to collect revenue; the point is to decrease spending though accountability.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Just because someone doesn`t pay federal income tax doesn`t mean they don`t care how tax dollars are spent. This would only make sense if the only involvement these people had with the federal government was paying tax, which is incorrect, since budgetary decisions made by the government affect all of its citizens. Even if they don`t pay federal tax, they likely still care about infrastructure and the like. You also haven`t detailed how much this flat tax would be, neither have you addressed my points about loss of deductions or double taxation, so without any more information it just seems to me like you`re assuming a flat tax is the one thing that will fix the problem when all it sounds like to me is magic beans.
0
Reply
Male 2,147
Just the usual "Rich, spoiled Texan got us in this mess so blame the black guy" poo.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Actually, I believe you haven`t thought it through. The point of this type of system is to reduce spending and corruption by increasing accountability.

Right now, ~49% of Americans pay federal income taxes. Therefore, it stands to reason that only ~49% of Americans are concerned with the use of tax dollars. Now, if you give part of that money to the other 51%, then you have a conflict of interests.

By instituting a flat tax, everyone is invested. Poor decisions in spending will fall as accountability increases (due to higher social investment). We would end up seeing lower total taxes and lower total spending.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Ok, I did misinterpret your meaning of flat tax. Here`s where it all falls apart though:
What tax amount would be appropriate? Some people can`t afford $20,000 worth of tax, and it`s ridiculous to charge that pittance to a corporation or rich person. So how then would you structure a flat tax as you suggest without taking all of someone`s money or not enough? You`re also neglecting the implications of removing deductions such as mortgage interest, or even the possibility of double taxation for more wealthy people. I need more information because it seems like you haven`t thought this through.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I agree that the successful have a moral obligation to help those unable to help themselves - through private charity (I think we`ve done this...). I recently read a research article from mises.org suggesting that for every $1 of wealth redistributed by the government, $5 goes to the bureaucracy (not very helpful for the little guy). For every $1 of wealth redistributed by charity, $0.33 goes to bureaucracy. This statistic would suggest that the Democrats are the greedy ones as they stand to make personal profit from redistribution.

As for the flat tax, I believe you misunderstand. I do not want a flat-rate tax (such as the 10% you suggest); I want a flat tax. For example, we all must pay a set and equal amount of money each year. Only in this way will we start minding the use of tax dollars.

A car costs the same regardless of the financial state of the purchaser.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: But if you`d like to argue morality of a flat tax, I can counter by saying I think that those who have been successful and earn more have a responsibility to help those who can`t help themselves. Now before you bark about handouts and whatnot, I`m not suggesting that people should get things for free just `cuz. That is another issue with how government spends taxes on certain things. But those same problems are akin to tax loopholes and other problems that allow the rich to skate by paying a pittance of tax. Would a flat tax help this? Possibly. It would depend largely on how the flat tax is constructed. You can`t just say "10% flat tax. That`s it." It`s much more complicated than that.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: I wasn`t debating your assertion of the morality of a flat tax, I was just laughing at how you think the rich are defenseless. I can`t fathom how you can believe that. And if the "Democratic bullies" are winning then why do we still see more tax breaks for the rich? Seems like they`re doing just fine to me.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Really? Beautiful way to completely fail to address the argument being made. Also, I think you will see that appealing to the vast numbers of people who want "free treats" from the government holds more sway than lobbyists.

Notice, I am not rich by any means. I am not in the "rich category" of earners over $250,000 annually. I am stating what I consider to be the obvious fact that the far more numerous lower and middle classes are bullying the rich through Democratic government.

Imagine if you went to buy a car and the salesman assessed the price based on your income. I think that would probably piss you off. Why are public works treated differently? As INDIVIDUALS (not businesses here), we all use them.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]a much smaller group unable to fight back.[/quote]
If only they had lots of money to lobby politicians with...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Gerry1of1: [quote]Statistically, the GOP
will take more from the average person and give more breaks to the super rich & corporations.[/quote]

Without debating the merits of trickle-down theory, I think this path is morally correct. In my opinion, we should all pay a flat tax (not a flat tax rate). After all, we all use the roads, public works, etc. As individuals, does it not then make sense that we would all pay the same amount for these services?

As far as I am concerned, this "tax the rich" philosophy is nothing more than pandering to a larger base by redistributing the earnings of a much smaller group unable to fight back. If we truely want to see intelligent decisions made with tax dolalrs, then we should all have some skin in the game (51% of Americans don`t pay into federal taxes last time I checked!).
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]but anything he did cannot justify anything Obama did. Obama NEVER got congressional approval for Libya, a war that killed 30,000[/quote]
*cough*Patriot Act*cough*
*cough*hundreds of pages passed by house and senate in two days*cough*
0
Reply
Male 1,010
Frankly I find Obama boring. Romney is better, he is like a Dubyah 2.0. There is no other practical reason to vote than the most entertaining one in a corporate state, Haliburton runs the military and Murdoch runs the press, always will be so at least have the courage to vote for the funniest candidate at least until democracy hits you :-)
0
Reply
Male 1,866
‘The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.’

‘During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith; 2. from spiritual faith to great courage; 3. from courage to liberty; 4. from liberty to abundance; 5. from abundance to complacency; 6. from complacency to apathy; 7. from apathy to dependence; 8. from dependence back into bondage.

0
Reply
Male 39,902

Failed to fulfill campaign promises?
Shocking! That`s unheard of in politics!

Face it, they`re all theives and liers. So the question is
which one will steal less from you. Statistically, the GOP
will take more from the average person and give more breaks to
the super rich & corporations. So, while I do not support
Obama, I am forced to vote against Romney.

*sigh* I want Bill Clinton back.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
o thats real funny, our only hope is the GOP
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]My business is better than ever.[/quote]
So, what is your business, Lauriloo? Foreclosing on houses? Making obsolete solar panels? Registering illegal aliens to vote? Building overpriced electric cars in Finland?
0
Reply
Male 4,793
"Until that`s taken out of the way, you might as well vote in a dictator."

Except for the fact that we can`t even do that because all we have is the illusion of the ability to vote for somebody.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Lauriloo, you must be living in the dark ages if you think that being against free birth control is being anti-woman. My mom laughs at needy women like you. If you are such an independent woman, you don`t need government giving free stuff to you, being a sugar daddy. Birth control is not expensive. Seriously, it`s not. At all.

And your business is apparently the only business that is doing well then. Why would you say that most business say their costs are going up? Why does unemployment remain high and why is economic growth stagnant (roughly equal to population growth, effectively zero) if the policies are so good?
0
Reply
Male 2,578
hi2pi, I would never usually say this to anyone for having a different opinion, but since you called anyone you disagrees with you an "ingrate", I beg you to kindly fuq off.

"Reasoned, rational" policy is not borrowing 40 cents of everything you spend - 4 years after your predecessor left. We could have fought World War 2 and had 2 New Deals for the amount of debt we`ve accumulated. Bush was an idiot, but anything he did cannot justify anything Obama did. Obama NEVER got congressional approval for Libya, a war that killed 30,000 (per capita, more deadly than 10 years of Iraq). He`s bombing Yemen and many other countries to the ground and has brought about an even further erosion of our civil liberties.

You must be living on planet Hack or something.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"I can`t imagine anyone wanting four more years of this idiot."

Imagine me, then. My business is better than ever. When Obamacare goes full force, I`ll pay less than ever for the same care. My retirement funds are higher than ever. I don`t know what your problems are but Obama`s four years have been wonderful for me. AND, nothing the GOP proposes is good for me so I definitely don`t want any of those woman-hating bozos back in office.
0
Reply
Male 1,135
A million dollars of hidden treasure? Holy poo
0
Reply
Male 1,243
It doesn`t matter who`se the leader, the ones with the most money in that nation still rule. Until that`s taken out of the way, you might as well vote in a dictator.
0
Reply
Male 736
lol, this board is hilarious. yeah, 4 more years of reasoned, rational policy is the worst thing you could do! better to go back to the bunch of people that started how many wars? the same ones that gutted your economy? ingrates.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Im glad to see a fully impartial magazine
0
Reply
Female 1,244
I sure as hell don`t want another 4 years of this dude.
0
Reply
Male 3,646
Wow. A surprising article by NewSpeak!
0
Reply
Male 2,085
I can`t imagine anyone wanting four more years of this idiot.
0
Reply
Male 53
GTFO Obama. The world is tired of having their families be slaughtered by you. And take your drones and pro-war attitude with you.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
This magazine just likes to have lots of enticing covers to sell magazines. A while ago they had that cover of Sarah Palin in jogging shorts that she seemed to really dislike.
0
Reply
Male 40,739
If the MSM, any of them, turn on Obama it`s truely "game over".

This could just be a "false flag" though, pretending to attack but really just trying to gain sympathy.

How many people are going to even glance at the other 4 pages of the article? How many will just think "Oh that "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" is at it again, those racists!" eh?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
The article is actually pretty good too!

0
Reply
Male 3,445
Ok. Again, this is an EDITORIAL. Remember when Newsweek did the same thing with a pro-Obama editorial by Andrew Sullivan a few months ago?
0
Reply
Male 5,004
I stopped reading after he sited numbers starting one full year before Obama was inaugurated. Biased article is biased:

"Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security`s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed."
0
Reply
Male 1,249
OHMYGOD i mean huh
0
Reply
Male 20,905
Link: Newsweek Magazine: Obama`s Gotta Go [Pic+] [Rate Link] - Judging from the cover of this week`s Newsweek, it looks like their love affair with Obama is over.
0
Reply