Obama/O'Reilly Part 2

[Psycho4Bud]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhwMRKVeFJw[/YOUTUBE]

Happy viewing....

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 09-09-2008. Obama/O'Reilly Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhwMRKVeFJw Happy viewing.... Have a good one!:s4: Rating: 5

[Reefer Rogue]

Awesome, that was lively

4 trillion dollars debt, lol..

[flyingimam]

class warfare :S2:

he maintains his jerkmanship at all times.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

So more tax on the middle class and less on the wealthy... is just fair taxation. But less on the middle class and more on the wealthy; now it's class warfare. :wtf:

[khronik]

So more tax on the middle class and less on the wealthy... is just fair taxation. But less on the middle class and more on the wealthy; now it's class warfare. :wtf:

Well, Bill's point was that the wealthy already pay a way larger percentage of their income as taxes. But Obama did make a good point that a lot of stuff needs fixing and the people that will pay for it should be the ones who can afford to. And I do like that he didn't say "Yeah, we're gonna stick it to you rich fuckers!" or anything like that. If anything he seemed to compliment them for paying for such a large amount of their country's upkeep. That's one of many things I disliked about John Edwards, even before the whole infidelity thing came out.

[killerweed420]

O'reilly is such an idiot. And where is the national debt know under the leadership of Bush?

[dragonrider]

I think in this segemnt, O'Reilly let the douche out of the bag a bit more than in the first segment --- I like that he sticks to his line of questioning aggressively and he is honest about his own opinions, but I wish he wouldn't talk over his guests so much. Let them talk dammit! He is actually pretty good at questioning, but his style is irritating.

Whatever...

I thought Obama handled the issue pretty well though. I agree with him that if you have things you HAVE to pay for, then you have to get the money from somewhere.

It seems like to me that conservatives have lost their integrity on "fiscal conservatism." I consider myself fiscally conservative, and to me that means PAYING for your spending --- keep spending low if you can, but always pay for it. If you can't keep spending low, then your taxes will have to be high to pay for it. Conservatives changed from being fiscally responsible to focusing on ALWAYS keeping taxes low, no matter how much they want to spend, and just piling on the debt. That is NOT fiscal conservatism. The biggest threat to our economy at this point is high DEBT, not high TAXES.

This whole debate about how to structure the tax code and who pays more and who pays less has always seemed like a bunch of BS to me. I've seen many administrations come and go, and many debates about tax policy, and many "reforms." But it seems like it never changes what I pay very much.

I saw a chart of proposed tax structures, rates, and tiers from both Obama and McCain, and it looks like the difference between the two for my bracket was going to be something like $200 a year. Big deal! Who cares! It was like that all the way up the scale untill you got to people making hundreds of thosueands of dollars more than me. For almost everyone it makes no difference at all! It's like the rich have tricked all of us into arguing this thing on their bahalf! Neither party is going to really, REALLY screw the middle class on taxes, so the debate is really whether the rich should help to keep the debt low and balance the budget.

However we slice it up, we have GOT to balance the budget and pay down this debt, or we will all get screwed when the economy tanks.

[killerweed420]

It never changes because there is really no difference between the 2 parties. At want point is our national debt going to be so large that we have go bankrupt?

[khronik]

It never changes because there is really no difference between the 2 parties. At want point is our national debt going to be so large that we have go bankrupt?

The differences between the parties may not be apparent when they're campaigning, but they certainly exist. The problem is that prior to the election, every candidate that wants to have a chance of winning has to adopt this ridiculous inoffensive douchebag persona. For instance, no one can say anything bad about any aspect of American Christianity, Israel, any minority group, any majority group, or a whole host of any other things. And no one can say anything good about any person or group that is even a little bit offensive to any group of people they want the votes of. Just look at some of the threads in this forum for proof of that.