Obama is gonna tax your soda...

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

bet all those who voted for obama are feeling pretty dumb right about now

That's the thing about being dumb, you are usually ignorant as well. I would guess they aren't feeling anything...

 

[TurdFergueson2 5,000+ posts]

Poor Barak and all the criticism he endures //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gifBush had it so easy.

He was on vacation at this time during his first term. He threw out 300 dollar checks and went fishing.

bet all those who voted for obama are feeling pretty dumb right about now

Because he taxed soda? Get real man. Were you old enough to vote? Not insulting you, was just curious.

 

[psych0ticnemes1 5,000+ posts]

You should rename the title of this thread to "Republicans United against Obama."

A tax on soda would certainly be retarded, but as the article states it isn't Obama's suggestion. The two heads of the Senate Finance Committee are working together to come up with ideas. One is a democrat and one is a republican. Both parties are trying to find money wherever they can. It just isn't there.

 

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

He was on vacation at this time during his first term. He threw out 300 dollar checks and went fishing.


Because he taxed soda? Get real man. Were you old enough to vote? Not insulting you, was just curious.

He has not taxed soda yet, but he did buy the banks and car companies with inflationary printed money. He already GAVE Chrysler to the UAW and stiffed private investors. So much for contractual agreements. Why would anyone buy a bond in a US company? But what do you care? Not at all I suspect.

 

[psych0ticnemes1 5,000+ posts]

He has not taxed soda yet, but he did buy the banks and car companies with inflationary printed money. He already GAVE Chrysler to the UAW and stiffed private investors. So much for contractual agreements. Why would anyone buy a bond in a US company? But what do you care? Not at all I suspect.

The economy needs to bounce back before we can start to improve. Money needs to be spent in order for the economy to bounce back. The idea that things will simply stabilize without action is ignorant. Yes, spending money we don't have sucks but what other choice do we have? Should we let the banks and motor companies fail? How will that benefit us?

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

The economy needs to bounce back before we can start to improve. Money needs to be spent in order for the economy to bounce back. The idea that things will simply stabilize without action is ignorant. Yes, spending money we don't have sucks but what other choice do we have? Should we let the banks and motor companies fail? How will that benefit us?

So tax people on soda, which they can't afford. Sales drop so soda companies make less profit and lay off workers, who jump on gov healthcare because they are poor, growing the burden on tax payer funded programs. While all this is happening the soda companies give the government less money in taxes because their profits are down.

Sounds smart to me

 

[csu87 10+ year member]

He was on vacation at this time during his first term. He threw out 300 dollar checks and went fishing.


Because he taxed soda? Get real man. Were you old enough to vote? Not insulting you, was just curious.

yes i am old enough to vote and i did vote against obama. He has done nothing that he promised to do. since taking office he has spent over a trillion dollars over his budget. a budget that would increase the national deficit by 1.5 trillion at the end of the year. at the rate he is going the national deficit will be over $30 trillion, over twice what it is now. with bush the national deficit only increased by about 5 trillion.

That is why taxes are going up. if i make the same amount of money as i did last year, my taxes are going to almost double. Why? so some dumb poor person can get free shit instead of working for it. Its communism at its finest.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

The economy needs to bounce back before we can start to improve. Money needs to be spent in order for the economy to bounce back. The idea that things will simply stabilize without action is ignorant. Yes, spending money we don't have sucks but what other choice do we have? Should we let the banks and motor companies fail? How will that benefit us?

Assuming for a second that some form of stimulus package was necessary, don't you think it would have been better to allow congress and the general public enough time to have actually read and deliberated the legislation?

 

[psych0ticnemes1 5,000+ posts]

So tax people on soda, which they can't afford. Sales drop so soda companies make less profit and lay off workers, who jump on gov healthcare because they are poor, growing the burden on tax payer funded programs. While all this is happening the soda companies give the government less money in taxes because their profits are down.
Sounds smart to me

Didn't you read my post? I said you're right, taxing soda is retarded. It doesn't sound like it would work. All I'm saying is that Obama isn't to blame for this idea, the Senate Finance Committee is. It is their job to come up with ways to fund the government's spending.

 

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

The economy needs to bounce back before we can start to improve. Money needs to be spent in order for the economy to bounce back. The idea that things will simply stabilize without action is ignorant. Yes, spending money we don't have sucks but what other choice do we have? Should we let the banks and motor companies fail? How will that benefit us?

How does stealing them and giving them to the unions benefit us?

Let me explain to you how letting them fail WOULD benefit us.

1) It would would legally dissolve all the contracts the car company had with the UAW and various suppliers.

2) The real and intellectual property would be sold off at the fair market value, enabling new investors to come in and purchase those entities.

3) The creditors (bond holders) would have free real bargaining power with the purchasers to to secure there investment.

4) The new company would be free of the bad contracts made by the old and would move forward unencumbered free to fail or succeed. As it should be.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Didn't you read my post? I said you're right, taxing soda is retarded. It doesn't sound like it would work. All I'm saying is that Obama isn't to blame for this idea, the Senate Finance Committee is. It is their job to come up with ways to fund the democrat's spending.

Fixed...and Obama's push for spending is the root cause

Congress sucks too though...no doubt about that

 

[psych0ticnemes1 5,000+ posts]

Assuming for a second that some form of stimulus package was necessary, don't you think it would have been better to allow congress and the general public enough time to have actually read and deliberated the legislation?

I don't know if more time would have made a difference or not. The president can't force congress to pass legislation. He can request a quick turnaround but that is as far as his executive power goes. Congress decided to push it through quickly regardless. That is on them, not the president.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

So tax people on soda, which they can't afford. Sales drop so soda companies make less profit and lay off workers, who jump on gov healthcare because they are poor, growing the burden on tax payer funded programs. While all this is happening the soda companies give the government less money in taxes because their profits are down.
Sounds smart to me

No, no. It doesn't work that way. You just take the money and it has no effect at all. Since they are "corporations" nothing you do to them effects "the average American."

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

No, no. It doesn't work that way. You just take the money and it has no effect at all. Since they are "corporations" nothing you do to them effects "the average American."

ahh, I knew I was missing something in the my logic there

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

I don't know if more time would have made a difference or not. The president can't force congress to pass legislation. He can request a quick turnaround but that is as far as his executive power goes. Congress decided to push it through quickly regardless. That is on them, not the president.

So, it's on the Democratic Congress, not the Democratic President, whose demands for immediate passage they were responding to.