the funny thing is democrats here saying they will not vote obama this coming election,lol
okay vote republican and see what happens to your social programmes
is it gingrich who at every turn tries to call blacks generate and these are insults and he never backs them up with facts.ex- his bs that black ppl depend more on food stamps when survey shows that WHITE people actually get food stamps most in the country followed by Blacks and then hispanics
is it romney that has been on all sides of the issues several times,he will say anything to win
is it santorum ,well women get ready to have babies concieved out of despoil for that archaic bible wielding warrior is sure against family planning
or is it ron paul who wants to govt to totally disappear? so limited police and co,re-enactment of the Nigerian failing sstem
vote one of them and if they win,better start counting your losses

milehigh06:

the funny thing is democrats here saying they will not vote obama this coming election,lol
okay vote republican and see what happens to your social programmes
is it gingrich who at every turn tries to call blacks generate and these are insults and he never backs them up with facts.ex- his bs that black ppl depend more on food stamps when survey shows that WHITE people actually get food stamps most in the country followed by Blacks and then hispanics
is it romney that has been on all sides of the issues several times,he will say anything to win
is it santorum ,well women get ready to have babies concieved out of despoil for that archaic bible wielding warrior is sure against family planning
or is it ron paul who wants to govt to totally disappear? so limited police and co,re-enactment of the Nigerian failing sstem
vote one of them and if they win,better start counting your losses

The people to whom you're talking down, are actually Africans, not Americans.  Therefore, we (meaning, I) don't base all our opinions on Obomber solely on his domestic policy.  The  "social programs" that seem to mean so much to you, based on the above post is not a priority to us, considering everything. . .

Our (meaning, MY) primary interest is the welfare of Africans and the African continent.  AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY!  If Obomber is going to pursue the exact same imperialistic and neo-colonial policies (despite his promises to the contrary), he is no different from all the others and I will BASH the hell out of him, just like I would the others.


*edited: for less anger at posters. lol. My venom is reserved for the one-term president.

@Kay-Dee,

That is the republican party not Obama or the democrats: It is the republicans that are striving to cut billions of dollars from public schools and lay off teachers.

So in your opinion, the best way to deal with the education problem is to throw more money at it?  For your information, no one is asking to cut the current budget but a cut in its projected increase. 

Not saying Obama and his policies are perfect but they're far better than the useless agenda of hateful, arrogant and racist republicans.

You mean you prefer a policy that will keep you dependent on handouts to a policy that will make you responsible for yourself and keep the better portion of your hard-earned income without being branded greedy?

By the way, you might be interested in considering Santorium's response in a debate and weigh it agaist the misconception that you have.

Rick Santorum says if Americans do three things they can avoid poverty: work, graduate from high school, and get married before having children.

WILLIAMS: Senator Santorum, the Obama administration has not specifically addressed high levels of joblessness and a 25 percent poverty rate in black America. They say they want to fix the economy for all, but given the crisis situation among a group of historically disadvantaged Americans, do you feel the time has come to take special steps to deal with the extraordinary level of poverty afflicting one race of America?

SANTORUM: It’s very interesting, if you look at a study that was done by the Brookings Institute back in 2009, they determined that if Americans do three things, they can avoid poverty. Three things. Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children. Those three things…

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Those three things, if you do, according to Brookings, results in only 2 percent of people who do all those things ending up in poverty, and 77 percent above the national average in income. It’s a huge, huge opportunity for us.
But what is the Obama administration doing? Elaine Bennett runs a program called Best Friends, the wife of Bill Bennett. And she told me through Bill that the Obama administration now has a policy, and this program is a program targeted at at-risk youth, specifically in many case necessary the African-American community, who are at-risk young girls. The Obama administration now has regulations that tells them that they can no longer promote marriage to these young girls. They can no longer promote marriage as a way of avoiding poverty and bad choices that they make in their life. They can no longer even teach abstinence education. They have to be neutral with respect to how people behave.
The problem is neutrality ends in poverty, neutrality ends in choices that hurt people’s lives. This administration is deliberately telling organizations that are there to help young girls make good choices, not to tell them what the good choice is. That is absolutely unconscionable.
http://nation.foxnews.com/south-carolina-gop-debate/2012/01/16/santorums-answer-poverty-question-hits-bulls-eye

Tayo-D:

@Kay-Dee,
So in your opinion, the best way to deal with the education problem is to throw more money at it?  For your information, no one is asking to cut the current budget but a cut in its projected increase. 

If you really want to implement the “No Child Left Behind” NCLB act and put more people in school, then you most definitely have to spend more money, that is simple logic.

“… I’ll tell you what’s wrong with No Child Left Behind,” President-elect Barack Obama said in a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire in 2007. “Promising high-quality teachers in every classroom and then leaving the support and the pay for those teachers behind is wrong. Labeling a school and its students as failures one day and then throwing your hands up and walking away from them the next is wrong.”

You mean you prefer a policy that will keep you dependent on handouts to a policy that will make you responsible for yourself and keep the better portion of your hard-earned income without being branded greedy?

By the way, you might be interested in considering Santorium's response in a debate and weigh it agaist the misconception that you have.

Rick Santorum says if Americans do three things they can avoid poverty: work, graduate from high school, and get married before having children.

WILLIAMS: Senator Santorum, the Obama administration has not specifically addressed high levels of joblessness and a 25 percent poverty rate in black America. They say they want to fix the economy for all, but given the crisis situation among a group of historically disadvantaged Americans, do you feel the time has come to take special steps to deal with the extraordinary level of poverty afflicting one race of America?

SANTORUM: It’s very interesting, if you look at a study that was done by the Brookings Institute back in 2009, they determined that if Americans do three things, they can avoid poverty. Three things. Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children. Those three things…

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Those three things, if you do, according to Brookings, results in only 2 percent of people who do all those things ending up in poverty, and 77 percent above the national average in income. It’s a huge, huge opportunity for us.
But what is the Obama administration doing? Elaine Bennett runs a program called Best Friends, the wife of Bill Bennett. And she told me through Bill that the Obama administration now has a policy, and this program is a program targeted at at-risk youth, specifically in many case necessary the African-American community, who are at-risk young girls. The Obama administration now has regulations that tells them that they can no longer promote marriage to these young girls. They can no longer promote marriage as a way of avoiding poverty and bad choices that they make in their life. They can no longer even teach abstinence education. They have to be neutral with respect to how people behave.
The problem is neutrality ends in poverty, neutrality ends in choices that hurt people’s lives. This administration is deliberately telling organizations that are there to help young girls make good choices, not to tell them what the good choice is. That is absolutely unconscionable.
http://nation.foxnews.com/south-carolina-gop-debate/2012/01/16/santorums-answer-poverty-question-hits-bulls-eye

I see you watch a lot of foxnews, lol. Those guys are . . . . . . .   

I was watching the LIVE debate when Sen. Santorum answered that question and I was wondering if Obama just told some people to quit their jobs and start depending on welfare. People have an immediate need to survive (blame it on the reccession and slow recovery) and the food stamps' program serves to provide for them. Not like he's not encouraging hard work or training to acquire a skill with which you can provide for yourself. As you heard in last night's speech concerning the mechanic lady that was laid off and went back to acquire some training before being re-employed.

These reforms take time but it seems the repubs are looking for a radical change where you just tell everyone "no more food stamps, go and get a job or starve to death". Obama did not invent welfare programs and contrary to Speaker Gingrich's claim that he has the most people in the history of America living on food stamps, it has been shown that about 500k more people were on food stamps in George Bush's tenure than currently.

Tayo-D:

@Kay-Dee,
So in your opinion, the best way to deal with the education problem is to throw more money at it?  For your information, no one is asking to cut the current budget but a cut in its projected increase. 

If you really want to implement the “No Child Left Behind” NCLB act and put more people in school, then you most definitely have to spend more money, that is simple logic.

“… I’ll tell you what’s wrong with No Child Left Behind,” President-elect Barack Obama said in a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire in 2007. “Promising high-quality teachers in every classroom and then leaving the support and the pay for those teachers behind is wrong. Labeling a school and its students as failures one day and then throwing your hands up and walking away from them the next is wrong.”

You mean you prefer a policy that will keep you dependent on handouts to a policy that will make you responsible for yourself and keep the better portion of your hard-earned income without being branded greedy?

By the way, you might be interested in considering Santorium's response in a debate and weigh it agaist the misconception that you have.

Rick Santorum says if Americans do three things they can avoid poverty: work, graduate from high school, and get married before having children.

WILLIAMS: Senator Santorum, the Obama administration has not specifically addressed high levels of joblessness and a 25 percent poverty rate in black America. They say they want to fix the economy for all, but given the crisis situation among a group of historically disadvantaged Americans, do you feel the time has come to take special steps to deal with the extraordinary level of poverty afflicting one race of America?

SANTORUM: It’s very interesting, if you look at a study that was done by the Brookings Institute back in 2009, they determined that if Americans do three things, they can avoid poverty. Three things. Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children. Those three things…

(APPLAUSE)

SANTORUM: Those three things, if you do, according to Brookings, results in only 2 percent of people who do all those things ending up in poverty, and 77 percent above the national average in income. It’s a huge, huge opportunity for us.
But what is the Obama administration doing? Elaine Bennett runs a program called Best Friends, the wife of Bill Bennett. And she told me through Bill that the Obama administration now has a policy, and this program is a program targeted at at-risk youth, specifically in many case necessary the African-American community, who are at-risk young girls. The Obama administration now has regulations that tells them that they can no longer promote marriage to these young girls. They can no longer promote marriage as a way of avoiding poverty and bad choices that they make in their life. They can no longer even teach abstinence education. They have to be neutral with respect to how people behave.
The problem is neutrality ends in poverty, neutrality ends in choices that hurt people’s lives. This administration is deliberately telling organizations that are there to help young girls make good choices, not to tell them what the good choice is. That is absolutely unconscionable.
http://nation.foxnews.com/south-carolina-gop-debate/2012/01/16/santorums-answer-poverty-question-hits-bulls-eye

I see you watch a lot of foxnews, lol. Those guys are . . . . . . .   

I was watching the LIVE debate when Sen. Santorum answered that question and I was wondering if Obama just told some people to quit their jobs and start depending on welfare. People have an immediate need to survive (blame it on the reccession and slow recovery) and the food stamps' program serves to provide for them. Not like he's not encouraging hard work or training to acquire a skill with which you can provide for yourself. As you heard in last night's speech concerning the mechanic lady that was laid off and went back to acquire some training before being re-employed.

These reforms take time but it seems the repubs are looking for a radical change where you just tell everyone "no more food stamps, go and get a job or starve to death". Obama did not invent welfare programs and contrary to Speaker Gingrich's claim that he has the most people in the history of America living on food stamps, it has been shown that about 500k more people were on food stamps in George Bush's tenure than currently.

isale_gan2:

The people to whom you're talking down, are actually Africans, not Americans.  Therefore, we (meaning, I) don't base all our opinions on Obomber solely on his domestic policy.  The  "social programs" that seem to mean so much to you, based on the above post is not a priority to us, considering everything. . .

Our (meaning, MY) primary interest is the welfare of Africans and the African continent.  AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY!  If Obomber is going to pursue the exact same imperialistic and neo-colonial policies (despite his promises to the contrary), he is no different from all the others and I will BASH the hell out of him, just like I would the others.


*edited: for less anger at posters. lol. My venom is reserved for the one-term president.

Yes the social programmes means much to me since i do pay my taxes and social program does not mean just food stamps,health care is involved,affordable schooling is involved and it does not hae to partain to me before i am concerned about it,people pay into their retirements and it should be there for them when they are ready to cash in,that is another form of social program.
Maybe you are not aware of the numerous attempts to make something happen in this economy that have been blocked by the republicans
his job proposal which 70% of people want has been blocked wayyyyy before this election cycle,or you believe the roads and bridges and rail tracks and co do not need fixing?what of a tax system that favors the wealthy,does that not need to be fixed
people accuse him of not being active but also forget that he can never get anything done unless the congress approves it,ordinary appointments to positions they have been holding up for 2 yrs and not too long ago a republican senator said on FOX that they will do everythng within their power to makesure Obama fails, but still yet,he got health reform passed,something every democratic president has been trying to do without succcess even the almighty clinton failed at it.and to think some where even bashing clinton as being a bad president, I would like to see those people and ask them how bush turned out for them

,

@milehigh06,

Yes the social programmes means much to me since i do pay my taxes and social program does not mean just food stamps,health care is involved,affordable schooling is involved and it does not hae to partain to me before i am concerned about it,people pay into their retirements and it should be there for them when they are ready to cash in,that is another form of social program.

How can you call something a social program if you are only getting a return on your investment? Are your returns on your 401K programs, or your tax refund and settlement in the event of an insurance claim social programs? You need a better definition.

Maybe you are not aware of the numerous attempts to make something happen in this economy that have been blocked by the republicans
his job proposal which 70% of people want has been blocked wayyyyy before this election cycle,or you believe the roads and bridges and rail tracks and co do not need fixing?what of a tax system that favors the wealthy,does that not need to be fixed

What programs were blocked by the Republicans? You mean of the $4trillion plus that this guy has spent after 3 years in office, he still had inadequate funds to spend on all the infrastructures you mentioned? They must not be high up on his priority list I will say. Besides, for the first two years of his administration, he had a Democratic led House and Senate that did his bidding all the time. Why blame the Republicans who have only being in power a year?

You obviously don't know anything about the tax system to be saying it only favors the wealthy. First you will need to learn the difference between taxes on earned income and capital gains tax. I personally think it is immoral for the govt to tax you on capital gains. How can you tax my earned income at 35% rate and yet demand same rate from the returns I get from that leftover? The greedy party here is the govt and not the investors. Also, I am appalled by people asking the rich to pay a higher rate instead of asking for the rates of the not-so-rich to be reduced. This action betrays their inner motive to punish the successful.

. . . .

^^
Nobody is taxing the rich or fighting for them to be taxed on capital gains, it is just Mr Buffet who rightly sees it as common sense that he should be paying more tax than his secretary who earns lower than him. The annoying thing is the republicans are fighting for more tax cuts (on earned income) for the rich.


Also, I am appalled by people asking the rich to pay a higher rate instead of asking for the rates of the not-so-rich to be reduced. This action betrays their inner motive to punish the successful.

This is the misconception that makes it look like a class warfare.

The rates for the not-so-rich to be reduced ? ? (not possible) then everyone might as well pay nothing in taxes. The deficit has to be serviced with tax money which is more or less a virtually fixed amount some where, this amount is balanced by taxing the rich and the "not-so-rich", so if the rich people pay nothing, it means the "not-so-rich" pay everything and if the rich pay more, then the "not-so-rich" pays less. But what we have here is a case of the rich paying a lot less than the middle class which is wrong.

, .

[flash=480,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg6kPY7QC3M[/flash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg6kPY7QC3M&feature=player_embedded

@Kay-Dee,

Nobody is taxing the rich or fighting for them to be taxed on capital gains, it is just Mr Buffet who rightly sees it as common sense that he should be paying more tax than his secretary who earns lower than him. The annoying thing is the republicans are fighting for more tax cuts (on earned income) for the rich.

This shows you have no idea what the discussion is all about. Obama and his buddies are keeping this away from people like you who blindly follow them without understanding the issues. Mr Buffet ewarns a yearly salary of $100,000 and gets taxed at the rate of that income bracket. The rest of his income, like Romneys, come from capital gains which is taxed at a much lower rate than earned income. So asking to raise uffet's rate is askinig to raise capital gains tax. What could be more impactful on investment that raising the capital gains tax? If you want Buffet to pay more, ask him to pay himself a higher salary and not game the system through capital gains while appearing sancttimonious.

This is the misconception that makes it look like a class warfare.

If it looks like, moves like and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!

The rates for the not-so-rich to be reduced ? ? (not possible) then everyone might as well pay nothing in taxes. The deficit has to be serviced with tax money which is more or less a virtually fixed amount some where, this amount is balanced by taxing the rich and the "not-so-rich", so if the rich people pay nothing, it means the "not-so-rich" pay everything and if the rich pay more, then the "not-so-rich" pays less.

This is what you fail to understand. A higher tax rate results in capital flight. Why do you think people are moving their businesses overseas? This is a global economy where capital seeks out investments with limited risk and higher rates of returns. Taxes is regarded as the cost of doing business and investors will look for ways to avoid the cost. When you reduce the tax rate, you have more economic activites which in itself increases government receipt. This is what happend during Reagan's term. He reduced the taxes across board and the govt had more money flowing in.

But what we have here is a case of the rich paying a lot less than the middle class which is wrong.

What they heck are you talking about? Even with the 15% taxes that Romney paid, he probably paid more taxes than a thousand middle classes put together. If you increase the capital gains tax, he will likely take out less money thereby reducing the govt receipt. Taxes are govt instruments for punishing and/or reducing an activity.

@Kay-Dee,

If you really want to implement the “No Child Left Behind” NCLB act and put more people in school, then you most definitely have to spend more money, that is simple logic.
“… I’ll tell you what’s wrong with No Child Left Behind,” President-elect Barack Obama said in a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire in 2007. “Promising high-quality teachers in every classroom and then leaving the support and the pay for those teachers behind is wrong. Labeling a school and its students as failures one day and then throwing your hands up and walking away from them the next is wrong.”

I have told you to stop taking the words of these guys as Gospel. Obama and people like him are just as corrupt and deceitful as anyone in their shoes. I am personally against the "No Child Left Behind" policy because it gets the federal govt involved in what should be a local issue. While the spirit behind the idea is right in trying to measure result and tie it to funding, I still think it can best be done some other way. That is a different matter though.

Anyway, money is not always the answer to the problem, especially when you have to borrow the money to spend on a program that keeps yielding a negative return. I send my kids to a private school where they will get a better education than the public school. What is very curious to me is that the fees I pay is less than what the govt pays per pupil in public schools. As at 2008 for instance, the average cost per pupil in public elementary-secondary school system in Minnesota is roughly $10,000 - http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/08f33pub.pdf. I pay about $7,500 for each of my child to go to a private school. If the govt can just hand over 70% of what they spend to parents in the form of vouchers, our schools will be better off as there will be competition for those dollars. Private schools will do better in educating the kids and parents will have a greater say in where their kids go rather than be forced to attend the one closest to them as currently obtains. This is just one of the sensible reforms that can be employed while saving the tax payers loads of money.

I see you watch a lot of foxnews, lol. Those guys are . . . . . . .

I don't watch a lot of foxnews. I just watched the debate on the channel. By the way, have they misrepresented the exchange?

I was watching the LIVE debate when Sen. Santorum answered that question and I was wondering if Obama just told some people to quit their jobs and start depending on welfare. People have an immediate need to survive (blame it on the reccession and slow recovery) and the food stamps' program serves to provide for them. Not like he's not encouraging hard work or training to acquire a skill with which you can provide for yourself. As you heard in last night's speech concerning the mechanic lady that was laid off and went back to acquire some training before being re-employed.

Isn't this what the Republicans are clamoring for? Like Newt said, the two years of unemployment the Dems are implementing is enough time for the unemployed to get an Associate Degree! We need to tie unemployment and welfare checks to conditions that will eventually make the people independent. The Dems do not want this because the more people are dependent on the govt, the brighter their political fortune. This is just not right.

These reforms take time but it seems the repubs are looking for a radical change where you just tell everyone "no more food stamps, go and get a job or starve to death". Obama did not invent welfare programs and contrary to Speaker Gingrich's claim that he has the most people in the history of America living on food stamps, it has been shown that about 500k more people were on food stamps in George Bush's tenure than currently.

The first welfare reform in the history of America was implemented at the direction of Speaker Gingrich. How many people starved to death through that reform? Stop letting the propaganda get to you. In 3 years Obama has put more people on foodstamp than the 8 years of Bush. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. The numbers you may be refering to probably reflects only the first 2 years of Obama and not the current numbers.