[QUOTE=Warhol;22861162]you know exactly why[/QUOTE]
What is ironic about his post again?
What does Irony mean anymore?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22861305]What does Irony mean anymore?[/QUOTE]
It's ummmm... made of metal?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22861305]What does Irony mean anymore?[/QUOTE]
·ro·ny
1    /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony[/url]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22861398]·ro·ny
1    /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony[/url][/QUOTE]
Ok, so I was... right?
[QUOTE=Ridge;22860626]They want a life of Big Brother having a say in everything they eat, say or do.[/QUOTE]
haha, a Republican complaining about big brother.
Bush and the Republicans increased the size of the government, increased spending, and gave the government more power with the Patriot Act, etc.
[QUOTE=Warhol;22861452]Ok, so I was... right?[/QUOTE]
Well you said it was ironic that he mentioned Big Brother.
Which would mean you would [I]not[/I] suspect him to use that example.
But I think you, along with everyone else, in reality are not surprised at all.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22861462]haha, a Republican complaining about big brother.
Bush and the Republicans increased the size of the government, increased spending, and gave the government more power with the Patriot Act, etc.[/QUOTE]
Obama's spending in his first year eclipsed every other big government spending plan in the history of the country. Obama is increasing the size of government. And he renewed the Patriot Act.
[IMG]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/49/bailoutpie.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861552]Obama's spending in his first year eclipsed every other big government spending plan in the history of the country. Obama is increasing the size of government. And he renewed the Patriot Act.[/QUOTE]
uh, maybe that has to do with the fact the conditions and the value of moneya are drastically different?
Patriot act is nothing different then every other similar act, both republican and democrat. it's wrong, but stop signaling him out
[editline]12:25AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861552]Obama's spending in his first year eclipsed every other big government spending plan in the history of the country. Obama is increasing the size of government. And he renewed the Patriot Act.
[IMG]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/49/bailoutpie.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
There is no source or numbers there
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861552]Obama's spending in his first year eclipsed every other big government spending plan in the history of the country. Obama is increasing the size of government. And he renewed the Patriot Act.[/QUOTE]
United States "Democrats" are actually really conservative. So it's expected.
You guys are awesome.
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861552]Obama's spending in his first year eclipsed every other big government spending plan in the history of the country. Obama is increasing the size of government. And he renewed the Patriot Act.
[IMG]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/49/bailoutpie.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
yeah, it's because he had to clean up the mess dumbfuck republicans left behind
and i fail to see the point in that graph since the 2008 bailout was under bush..
[QUOTE=emPiRe14;22861624]United States "Democrats" are actually really conservative. So it's expected.[/QUOTE]
No they aren't. They have a long history of hiking taxes and increasing spending on pet projects.
[editline]05:47PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;22861934]yeah, it's because he had to clean up the mess dumbfuck republicans left behind
and i fail to see the point in that graph since the 2008 bailout was under bush..[/QUOTE]
The bailout was authored by the Congress that had been Democrat-controlled since 2006, when everything started to fall apart.
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861981]No they aren't. They have a long history of hiking taxes and increasing spending on pet projects.[/QUOTE]
taxes are lower under obama
[editline]11:48PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861981]
The bailout was authored by the Congress that had been Democrat-controlled since 2006, when everything started to fall apart.[/QUOTE]
bush was the one who pushed the proposal
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861981]No they aren't. They have a long history of hiking taxes and increasing spending on pet projects.[/QUOTE]
Obama lowered taxes for ~95% of the population
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;22862000]
bush was the one who pushed the proposal[/QUOTE]
That's irrelevant. Congress passed it.
Bush was a dumbcunt, but it was still Congress that passed it.
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861981]
The bailout was authored by the Congress that had been Democrat-controlled since 2006, when everything started to fall apart.[/QUOTE]
it was authored by henry paulson, bush's secretary of treasury
a republican
[QUOTE=JDK721;22862023]Obama lowered taxes for ~95% of the population[/QUOTE]
Show me where he did that.
Most of the people that paid less this year in taxes are because the government's messing with the economy got thousands of people laid off. Those are the ones paying less taxes. Because they made less.
[QUOTE=Ridge;22861981]No they aren't. They have a long history of hiking taxes and[B] increasing spending on pet projects.[/B]
[editline]05:47PM[/editline]
The bailout was authored by the Congress that had been Democrat-controlled since 2006, when everything started to fall apart.[/QUOTE]
so do republicans lol
Everything was falling apart in 2003. And no it wasn't, it was a cabinet thing
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22862046]That's irrelevant. Congress passed it.
Bush was a dumbcunt, but it was still Congress that passed it.[/QUOTE]
facts are irrelevant? he clearly said it was authored by democrats, this is incorrect.
i was merely pointing it out, not arguing the ethics of success of the bailout plan
[QUOTE=Ridge;22862066]Show me where he did that.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/[/url]
[editline]12:54AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22862046]That's irrelevant. Congress passed it.
Bush was a dumbcunt, but it was still Congress that passed it.[/QUOTE]
democrats are submissive
Obama did not lower taxes. Hell, he let Bush's tax cuts expire, raising taxes.
The Stimulus helped nobody but big companies and the banks. Everybody knows that. It was a total flop.
Nowhere in that article does it say that happened. It says:
[QUOTE] It concluded 94.3 percent of workers [U][B]would [/B][/U][URL="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2007&DocTypeID=2"]receive a tax cut[/URL] under Obama's plan...[/QUOTE]
Not that they DID. That they WOULD.
he stimulus was a flop? what reality are you in?
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/[/url]
[QUOTE=Warhol;22862092]
democrats are submissive[/QUOTE]
Then why are there so many in office?
A reality where banks still wont loan to people, where unemployment is above 10%, and corruption is rampant in all levels of government.
Which one are you in?
[quote]
As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.
According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.
It’s hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality. Perhaps these people haven’t calculated their tax returns for 2009 yet and simply don’t know what they owe. Or perhaps they just assume that because a Democrat is president that taxes must have gone up, because that’s what Republicans say that Democrats always do. In fact, there hasn’t been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993.[/quote]
[URL]http://coloradoindependent.com/50655/forbes-tea-partiers-confused-taxes-%E2%80%98lower-by-every-measure%E2%80%99-under-obama[/URL]
[URL]http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1592/ignorance-bliss-tea-party-crowd[/URL]
[QUOTE=Ridge;22862263]A reality where banks still wont loan to people, where unemployment is above 10%, and corruption is rampant in all levels of government.
Which one are you in?[/QUOTE]
banks loan to people, unemployment has slowed it's just a blowback of bush, and this is just subjective.
[editline]01:08AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22862256]Then why are there so many in office?[/QUOTE]
what does that have to do with anything?
[QUOTE=Ridge;22862263]A reality where banks still wont loan to people, where unemployment is above 10%, and corruption is rampant in all levels of government.
Which one are you in?[/QUOTE]
you want to see corruption? go to south east asia. our government is not that bad at all. it's the corporations you have to keep an eye on.
[QUOTE=Warhol;22862304]banks loan to people, unemployment has slowed it's just a blowback of bush, and this is just subjective.[/QUOTE]
Bush's fault. Nice job.
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;22862343]you want to see corruption? go to south east asia. our government is not that bad at all. it's the corporations you have to keep an eye on.[/QUOTE]
That's not a very good argument. By that logic you could say China is good because South East Asia is doing way worse.
[editline]12:11AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;22862358]Bush's fault. Nice job.[/QUOTE]
If it's true it's true. People aren't just blaming Bush for no reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.