Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.

As to your claim about GNP/GDP (almost exactly the same totals)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...centage_of_GDP

Yes, I would say we have quite a bit of headroom for increasing revenue.

---

Then please explain this:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0519194014.gif

You Can't Soak the Rich

part from wiki: Hauser's Law:

Quote:

---

In a May 20, 2008 editorial, the Wall St. Journal published a graph showing that even though the top marginal tax rate of federal income tax had varied between a low of 28% to a high of 91% between 1950 and 2007, federal tax revenues had indeed constantly remained at about 19.5% of GDP.

---

Thing with the other countries is they have a different tax structure and practice protectionism. Then we also have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world, which makes large businesses locate offshore that can. If we would lower corporate tax rates, they might bring their capital back here.

I agree we can increase revenues, but it is by decreasing the tax rates of the rich. Not increasing them.

And yes, I meant GDP, not GNP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Looks like the GOP has checked out for the decade...

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
By BEN EVANS
Associated Press Writer

http://images.politico.com/global/07...roun-paul4.jpg

Link

Don't tell Broun about Blackwater, he's likely to get caught in one of those GOP logic traps...

---

I was gonna post about blackwater, but you beat me to it.

[QUOTE=kwhitegocubs;2890926]Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.
QUOTE]
As for military spending, we cannot reduce it much if any. The extra we are spending now is 'supplemental spending' and not part of the annual budget. With your sentiments, I hope you were not one that complained the troops went to war without adequate equipment. It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

Well, I'm all for adoption a whole host of Scandinavian-style macro-economic practices. And just about everything else.

I also don't see how an almost ever-decreasing top marginal tax rate and a near-stagnant tax revenue take indicates anything other than exponential wealth growth by the upper echelons of wealth. Which is true.

I mean, with the exception of the mild raises of the 1987-1992 range, I don't see anything but tax decreases. How do we not know that raising the upper marginal rate significantly now WON'T actually raise revenues significantly now?

If you notice, there IS a pretty solid correlation between decreased tax revenues and the Bush tax cuts. We can't know if the correlation swings the other way unless we try. And I am ALL for trying.

you mean like these guys.



http://civilizer.files.wordpress.com...water-logo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

Yeah, it's Clinton's fault we lied ourselves into an unnecessary war.

Umm, I actually wish the troops were so underfunded that it would be impossible for us to go into Afghanistan (needed), keep forces in overly large numbers in bases all over the world, and STILL have enough to go to Iraq.

Yes, I wish and hope and pray that our military is forced to pare down. We don't need imperialism. It's not like there is some pressing need to defend ourselves against land troops landing on our shores or crossing over from Canada or Mexico. The new terrorism we have bred by our actions far exceeds the terrorism we have quashed by our campaigns.

"Clinton's reduction of the military budget"

The USSR had collapsed. EVERYBODY expected a "peace dividend".

Clinton couldn't do any reductions without a Repug-controlled Congress approving it, even proposing it.

Don't let facts step all over your ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Then please explain this:

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0519194014.gif

You Can't Soak the Rich

part from wiki: Hauser's Law:

---

Again with this crap? Didn't I post a link debunking it last time you brought it up? (Among other things I recall is that it didn't include al taxes, like payroll taxes. And BTW, Hauser's law is actually a theory)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Thing with the other countries is they have a different tax structure and practice protectionism. Then we also have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world, which makes large businesses locate offshore that can. If we would lower corporate tax rates, they might bring their capital back here.

I agree we can increase revenues, but it is by decreasing the tax rates of the rich. Not increasing them.

And yes, I meant GDP, not GNP.

---

We've been down trickle down economic policies for the past 8 years and this complete economic turd is what we have to show for it. Time to try something else.

And BTW, your attempt to justify that Obama can be anything remotely like Hitler based on his campaign platform is completely asinine. But I guess any excuse is good to bring back the old conservative talking points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.

---

As for military spending, we cannot reduce it much if any. The extra we are spending now is 'supplemental spending' and not part of the annual budget. With your sentiments, I hope you were not one that complained the troops went to war without adequate equipment. It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

Not only we can, we most certainly will.

[QUOTE=Wild Cobra;2891579]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Uhh, maybe because by the end of his first term or the early portion of his second term (yes, I assume he will be elected twice given the state of the GOP), we will be able to slash military spending at a huge rate.

---

Quote:

---

As for military spending, we cannot reduce it much if any. The extra we are spending now is 'supplemental spending' and not part of the annual budget. With your sentiments, I hope you were not one that complained the troops went to war without adequate equipment. It was president Clinton's reduction of the military budget that caused such issues. Should we have cause to go to war in the future, do you want our troops even less prepared?

---

Just what in Sam Hill do our troops need to be prepared for? To go spelunking through the desert for more WoMD that are "promised" to be there? At what point do we need MORE of an army than what we already have?

Bush had two years to prepare for Iraq. The simple truth is he didn't expect to be there more than a few months. Too bad he and his administration fucked up over and over and over again in Iraq. No one can honestly say the invasion of Iraq was worth the diversion of men and resources from Afghanistan, but I'm sure some idiots here will try.

You know what, I just don't give a fuck about the GOP, Republicans, and Conservatives in this country anymore. Go fuck yourself, seriously. Go fuck yourself.

I'm tired of trying to argue simple logic to you moronic fucks. You simply refuse to accept the facts that are staring you straight in the face.

The next 8 years will be governed by President Barack Hussein Obama. Get used to it. Your party is a dying breed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We shouln't forget however that before Hitler gained full power, he was loved by the people.

---

People left Germany in droves all through the 1930s. Go to Amazon.com and you will see many books about this topic.

And even if you don't like Obama, comparing him to Hilter is ridiculous. Even the completely failed presidency of GW Bush doesn't come close to warrant a comparison to Hitler.

You are over-reacting to your party's loss like an obsessed and hysterical partisan with a persecution complex.

Please calm down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Just what in Sam Hill do our troops need to be prepared for? To go spelunking through the desert for more WoMD that are "promised" to be there? At what point do we need MORE of an army than what we already have?

---

They need to be prepared for when we need them. Just that simple. You don't reduce a standing army to where is is unprepared. That is when the shit hits the fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Not only we can, we most certainly will.

---

Yes, we probably will. That is just an invitation of trouble. A mart president and congress will keep a strong standing Army.

What would president Kennedy have done?

Like I said....do you think we are going to have a land invasion in this country!? What threat to our country HERE is there? Hmm?

What the *fuck* do we need to be vigilant against!?

Terrorists blowing up shit in this country is going to be handled by security regulations or its not. A standing army isn't going to fix that. Seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

People left Germany in droves all through the 1930s. Go to Amazon.com and you will see many books about this topic.

And even if you don't like Obama, comparing him to Hilter is ridiculous. Even the completely failed presidency of GW Bush doesn't come close to warrant a comparison to Hitler.

You are over-reacting to your party's loss like an obsessed and hysterical partisan with a persecution complex.

Please calm down.

---

There was a time the people loved Hitler. He had the Autobahns built. He had the Volkswagen financed. I think the period of the 30's you speak of was people fleeing a collapsing economy. Not Hitler, at least not till the later part of the 30's.

I'm comparing Obama to the early Hitler. Before he started a war and slaughtered the Jews. I'm not saying Obama will follow in his footsteps. That's your assumption.

Then a great number of presidents and leaders have been like the early Hitler.

Eisenhower presided over the construction of the Interstate Highway System. People loved him. The Big 3 and manufacturing were strong.

Was Eisenhower then like the early Hitler. If you say yes, I will no longer be offended or stupefied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm comparing Obama to the early Hitler. Before he started a war and slaughtered the Jews. I'm not saying Obama will follow in his footsteps. That's your assumption.

---

There is no other political figure in history you can compare Obama to on the basis of initial popularity, infrastructure rebuilding and industry financing? The one you jump to is the most hated figure in all of human history? And we're not supposed to draw assumptions from that? Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

There is no other political figure in history you can compare Obama to on the basis of initial popularity, infrastructure rebuilding and industry financing? The one you jump to is the most hated figure in all of human history? And we're not supposed to draw assumptions from that? Please.

---

Because of the way they both have their popularity. Giving things to the people.

Every leader who is popular now must be compared with Hitler.

You guys have lost your minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Because of the way they both have their popularity. Giving things to the people.

---

Obama hasn't even taken office yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Because of the way they both have their popularity. Giving things to the people.

---

So, every politician who is popular and promises better for their people is to be compared with Hitler? You are loop the frickin' loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BradLohaus

The military is pretty strong, powerful, and well-funded. What does he plan to do with this new civilian national security force?

I bet if McCain had been elected and said the exact same thing then it would be headline news on the HuffPost in big red letters and Naomi Wolf would be freaking out... for good reason.

---

I find it odd that Obama gave that speech in Colorado and the Army is planning on establishing "...the largest military base in the world..." in Colorado.