Sign Depicting Life-Size Obama Wearing a Turban Draws Criticism

So the janitor who shows up daily to push the broom or clean the toilet is just too lazy? I believe this way of thinking is the problem.

In case you didn't know, Michelle and her family grew up in a one bedroom apt. Her dad had MS but had to continue working his low paying job just to feed his family. I don't think she's claiming victim status but she IS saying those situation are tough times.

We can change the constitution. This is why I am proud to see more American's exercising their vote. If it's unconstitutionally to help those in need, lets make it constitutional.

I still say you're looking at it wrong Rev. No one is looking for the government to fix their problems. We just don't want the government to reward their company with a tax break for sending their job overseas. If the CEO can get 5x or 10x his salary for a bonus then surely there is enough in the cash drawer to give the janitor a decent wage and a good health care program. Is that too much to ask?

We've been giving the corporations and top 5% tax breaks for the last 8 years hoping things will get better. What did it get us, 160K more unemployed last month alone. 750K to date this year. That method doesn't seem to be working too well.

Obama wants to try putting more money in the consumers hands so maybe they will patronize the business who will make more profit and grow the economy that way.

ex. Clothe maker. We can give the tax break to the owner and hope he will hire more workers. The past 8 years has shown the owner will just pocket the increased profit and doesn't hire another employee. Not in this country or from this country anyway.

Obama says why not give the break to the consumer who can then buy more of his clothe which will raise his profits and allow him to hire more workers to keep up with demand. I don't know why the conservatives keep saying this will cut jobs and hurt the middle class because it has just as much chance of working as giving the owner the tax cut. Or giving the corporation the tax cut and hoping he will hire someone in this country.

What's better about Obama plan, it is simple enough a guy like me understands it.

 

Just curious, would like to know how you have served this country.

 

Irrelevant

So she should hate america?

The constitution would need to be changed for it to be legal. The government almost never helps anyone. And is poor stewardship

The government has no business getting involved in how private companies handle their affairs. Ad such assuptions falls short of all the problems associated with employee packages.

This places the blame for unemployment in the wrong direction. And it is untrue that companies get tax incentives for doing business overseas. We should not be taxing any business doing business outside the US. It is not within our jurisdiction. Further taxing them will push them to move their corps overseas all together. No one is owed a paycheck.

No he doesn't. he wants to put money in the hands of his buddies that supported his campaign to power. If you want to put money in the hands of the consumer quit taxing them.

Intentional fallacy

The "break should be given to everyone across the board evenly. Getting rid of federalism all together will put all kinds of money back in everyones pockets.

Or vague enough you cannot know the real intent.

 

Exactly correct

 

The war of classes is very relevant when discussing whose a victim. Hard to get up with someones foot on your neck. Not everyone is capable or has the skillset to start their own business so they must work for someone else who they hope will treat them fair. When not treated fair, you are a victim of society which is where government intervenes.

She never said she hated American, she said for the first time she was proud. Not being proud is not the same as hate.

Poor stewards. That's like responsible government.

Theoretically they shouldn't have to. However greed and other inhumane decisions being made by those in charge of private companies force government to get involved on behalf of the people. If companies would treat the workers fair, provide a safe environment and would hire fairly then you're right, government won't need to be in involved.

If GM builds a car in Japan, sells the car in Japan and the CEO in America reaps the benefit then we do have a right to tax that transaction. At least the portion the CEO benefited from. We did lower the taxes and they still moved the jobs overseas because labor was cheaper. So what's it matter, either way we loose the jobs from this country.

You're not following the discussion, he wants to cut the taxes of 95% of the workers. This is putting money in the hands of the consumers like you said, by reducing their tax.

I'm in favor of flat tax if we eliminate the loop holes that allows tax lawyers and accountants from keeping those with big bucks from paying their share.

Are you advocating each state becoming their own country? It would only raise your state tax.

 

This class warfare is made up in the monds of libs.

Uh Huh

No socialist/communists exaggerate in order to effect change.

We do not have the right to hold jobs in the US. And companies have the right ot make snad set wages as they wish. If you dont like it dont work for them.

sigh....he is a liar. Clinton said the same junk and did just the opposite.

And it will keep average Americans safe from an unfair tax system.

In case you forget this is what this country was founded on.

 

It would be interesting to know your concept of what our country was founded on.

 

Sorta, it destroys the concept of our society and creates substandard living when people work hard all week and don't make enough to live. I ain't talking about cable TV and cell phones, I mean rent and food. Capitalism can only work if consumers are able to consume so it helps if we each make enough pay to not only survive but consume. I know this hints of spreading the wealth around but I wasn't offended with what Obama said.

I don't gather that from this statement...

Perhaps you can make clear what you mean...?

 

Are you not aware how Madison (the Father of the Constitution) and Jefferson defined it?

The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. ~ Thomas Jefferson

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest. ~James Madison


It is rather hypocriticle to complain about national debt when we support the incurring of debt.

 

You're quoting from;

That is where I find this statement...

Now this is from the Constitution...

And the word welfare in this case means;

This the constitution was amended again to say;

 

I see what you're saying, you mean TJ defined the word welfare from Section 8 - Powers of Congress in his appeal about national banking.

What became of that? Did all the signers agree that's what we meant or is this just one person's opinion?

 

Welfare referring to trade and commerce with regards to trade with other countries. It was about paying debts to other countries. Not about personal entitlement programs. The framer of the constitution himself as I quoted was against such ideas. He would be the better interpreter of the constitution than any current sitting judge. Under the current tax system we should just do away with state lines and state constitutions which by the way is evidence of the very limited powers of the federal government.

 

You fail to acknowledge the Social Security Act of 1935 which began what we call today Welfare. Congress passed the bill and it was signed by the president so it is law. When a democracy or its representatives make something law, then it supersedes or becomes part of the the constitution and becomes part of who we are. We are a country with a welfare system.

You can deny the constitutionality but our constitution is a changing document and was never meant to be stagnant or a permanent matter of fact. It must change to adjust to and account for modern times.

 

Where in the constitution does it relay this idea? Fact is it doesn't. Why is it that the Enumerated Powers Act H.R. 1359 is always held up? Because libs do not want to be held to the constitution as it was intended by the framers. Communism is contrary to our constitution and cannot stand under its weight. Social Security is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

You fail to acknowledge the general powers of the states and the Enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

 

I don't understand what you're questioning, are you questioning congresses power to make law? Their ability to alter the constitution or the founding fathers intentions? What exactly are you asking me to respond?

Oh, I see, you skipped right over Article 1 section 7 to get to sect 8. You have to take section 7 and 8 together or you will not see the light.

You sir are a Federalist but unfortunately according to Article 4 Section 4 we are a Republican government and a Confederation

 

Now you are just being silly and you know it. Just exactly how are they to alter the constitution? You certainly provided nothing in the constitution that gives congress the right to pass whatever they want to.

Nothing there providing for the enactment of federal welfare.

Again why do the libs not want to be forced to provide constitutionality on bills they put forth?

Why do we have separate states and constitutions thereof?

 

According to Michelle Obama she has just this year become proud of her country, took her long enough. I hope it didn't take you as long as it did her.

 

What I said below, section 7. It gives them the power and process to make law...

 

Where does it say state rights supersedes or negates federal law? It is just the opposite which is why Roe vs Wade needs to be reversed before the states can make their own laws.