America's ignorance of Obama 'disturbing'

[just-want-peace]

I guess then we have replaced one form of slavery for another. It's sad that we would trade our birthright for a government check. This country will not last much longer under such thinking. The next step in that line of thinking will result in birth rates below replacement level so that we can breed ourselves out. Just like the enlightened Europeans are doing, because kids are such a drag on the finite economic pie that has to be equally shared.

Such thinking is anti-biblical and atheistic to the core.

Emphasis mine

A perfect example of modern "AMERICA"!!! (And satan is grinning from ear-to-ear!)

Rant & rave all you will about any given segment of society whether economics, abortion or something else, this quote just about covers the whole story.

Bottom line: the USA has/is worshiping a modern "BAAL", and He ain't gonna' stand for it!!!:tear::tear:

 

[carpro]

The signs were all there.

Americans shut their eyes and closed their minds and voted for a radical socialist that associated with anti-American terrorists, socialists, and communist radicals and is married to a radical racist that has only been proud of her country twice in her life.

Now they'll reap what they have sown.

The largest deficits in history ....by far ...followed by huge tax increases across the board for everyone that actually pays taxes. All to fund the socialization of America.

The growth of government, the likes of which has never been seen in our history is about to occur.

Who will stand in the way? You're a racist if you do, just like you were if you saw through Obama's sleight of hand before the election.

The Republicans in congress? Gutless.

It will have to run it's course. The American people will revolt eventually and throw the anti-america dogs out of office.

I only hope I live long enough to see it. :thumbs:

These are my predictions.

We've heard about the past and the Bush haters have chimed in, but no one has offered one ounce of evidence to refute my predictions.

Why is that? It has to be because Obama has made over 200 new spending proposals and they really just have no idea how much it's going to cost...and neither does he...

so they talk about the past.

 

[carpro]

Course correction.

Lets get back on topic, which has nothing to do with slavery.

Ken's red herring took hold, didn't it? :laugh:

The purpose of the red herring, after all, was to take the thread off topic...

maybe even get it closed.

 

[KenH]

no one has offered one ounce of evidence to refute my predictions.

How does one refute a prediction? Only time will tell whether a prediction is accurate or not.

However, your desire to live to see the "anti-America dogs" thrown out of office did come true in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Congrats on getting that prediction correct. :thumbs:

 

[KenH]

Ken's red herring took hold, didn't it?

That wasn't mine. That was Pastor Mitchell's.

 

[carpro]

How does one refute a prediction? Only time will tell whether a prediction is accurate or not.

By taking Obama's new spending proposals and showing they do not amount to over a trillion dollars and/or showing how to pay for them without massive tax increases.

Should be easy for a dedicated Obamanite.

 

[KenH]

By taking Obama's new spending proposals

None of which have been passed by the Congress and signed by the president.

Here is a prediction I will make: All of Barack's proposals will not become law just as all of the proposals by all of our previous presidents have not become law.

 

[carpro]

None of which have been passed by the Congress and signed by the president.

Meaning you have no idea how to pay for his proposals and are depending on a partisan majority democrat congress to somehow put a stop to his spending.

A naive approach, to say the least.

 

[carpro]

Someone actually did put a pencil to just 188 of Obama's proposals and came up with some numbers. Bear in mind that obama has made many more new spending proposals since then.

The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more.

To translate this point into language everyone can understand: if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year; if you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least $2,300 a year.

This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend current tax policy.

But we are not just looking at new spending. He also wants to balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security Surplus. If he follows through with these promises it would mean:

The average taxpayer earning $62,000 would see their income tax bill rise $5,300 (61%); or

The average taxpayer earning $104,000 would see their income tax bill rise by $12,300(74%)

The average taxpayer earning $365,000 would see their income tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500 (132%)!

Keep in mind all these tax increases would be on top of the:
$2,300 tax increase 43 million families will feel when the current tax policy
expires,

$2,200 tax increase seniors will experience when the current tax policy expires, and

$4,100 tax increase small business will have to pay when the current tax policy expires.

 

[KenH]

It is very naive to think that all spending proposals will be enacted into law, especially considering the conservative economic policy-caused economic crisis that we are now dealing with, and including that the federal government appears to be willing to increase the deficit instead of increasing tax rates to get our nation out of Bush's economic mess.

 

[Dragoon68]

... conservative economic policy-caused economic crisis ...

Don't you mean to loose home mortgage qualifications imposed by Democrats in order to expand home ownership? Those weren't conservative polices. They were the product of liberal Democrats. They are examples of their grand social re-engineering ideas that all fall flat in the end.

 

[KenH]

Deny it all you want but this economic mess will go down in the history books as a problem caused by President Bush/Republican-conservative economic policies...and rightly so.

 

[JustChristian]

Deny it all you want but this economic mess will go down in the history books as a problem caused by President Bush/Republican-conservative economic policies...and rightly so.

Absolutely. Sub-prime loans started under Clinton but the great majority of they originated under Bush. To say that Clinton is primarily responsible for this crisis is like saying Eisenhower was primarily responsible for our defeat in Viet Nam because he first sent some advisors there. I think everyone puts the blame on LBJ because he was the President who greatly escalated the war.

So, if you believe that Eisenhower was responsible for Viet Nam then its consistent to believe that Clinton is responsible for this financial crisis.

 

[Dragoon68]

Deny it all you want but this economic mess will go down in the history books as a problem caused by President Bush/Republican-conservative economic policies...and rightly so.

What "conservative economic polices" are responsible for making home loans to people who can't pay them back? These policies started with the New Deal and expanded with Carter and then Clinton. Once enacted into law the sitting President had no choice but to continue to implement them except by seeking relief through Congress. All Republican efforts to cut back on the program or to put more controls on them were harshly met by strong cries of resistance from the Democrats. All you have to do is read the record or listen to the Congressional debates of the times to see what took place. This problem lies squarely at the feet of the social re-engineering masters of Congress otherwise known as liberal Democrats.

As for Bush, well I strongly disagreed with his call for a financial bailout. I think we should have let the banks involved fail and let the people involved who can't make their mortgage payments loose their homes. That's actually the "fair" thing to do - let those involved suffer the consequences. I think it was wrong to saddle Americans with additional tax liability to cover those mistakes. We're already going to "pay" enough in the lost value of investments caused by the resulting panic from the governments actions - both in the first part and the second.

 

[KenH]

I reject your economic Darwinism, Dragoon68. Fortunately, those calling the shots in this nation do so, also.

The type of economic collapse that you are advocating by saying that the government should sit on the sidelines would cripple our economy for years, if not decades, and destroy what is left of the middle class, and possibly result in the installation of a right-wing fascist dictatorship in this country.

 

[Dragoon68]

I reject your economic Darwinism, Dragoon68. Fortunately, those calling the shots in this nation do so, also.

Actually the ones really "calling the shots" - the people from top to bottom that are actually engaged in making and selling goods and services - probably agree more with my thoughts that the bogus leaders we're putting in Washington who think they know how to make capitalism work properly. These leaders seem rather determined to further mess up a good thing and generations to come will suffer for it. Their formula for failure is called socialism. I just hope the ones really "calling the shots" can overcome this trend by the sheer mass of our capitalistic economic engine. If the socials manage to extract the last bit of energy to run it then we're doomed.

 

[KenH]

Capitalism is dead in the United States, Dragoon68. The Bush administration killed what was left of it.

We are all socialists now.

 

[Havensdad]

Wallbuilders is not a credible source.

www.christianethicstoday.com/issue/003/Wallbuilders%20or%20Mythbuilders%20By%20Nicholas%20P%20Miller_003_17_.htm

LOL!!! EXACTLY what I would expect from you! Quoting an atheist-sourced article, from a "Christian ethics" journal, that publishes articles by Barak Obama!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thankfully, all of what I posted cites original source material, not secondary "Opinions" of atheist Christian hate organizations....

Imagine, "Americans united for Separation of Church and State", disparaging the original framers/founders actual letters, on their intent of the establishment clause...I couldn't imagine that they might have an ulterior motive

Again, you show your bias.

 

[KenH]

The article is from a publication of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Why are you calling Seventh Day Adventists atheists?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Okay, I gave fair warning. This thread was about the perceived dangers of Obama fiscal policies. It had nothing to do with slavery, President Bush, or the ideas of the Founders.