President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[conversationpc]

History will show Bush Jr. to be unequiovocally the worst President of the past 235 years, and in particular the GOP policies of this past decade to be the worst since Hooverism nearly destroyed America in the 20's.

History will show that Bush kicked us further on down the road of insurmountable debt and that Obama didn't kick us further down the road but instead launched us down it in a freakin' missile.

[S2M]

History will show Bush Jr. to be unequiovocally the worst President of the past 235 years, and in particular the GOP policies of this past decade to be the worst since Hooverism nearly destroyed America in the 20's.

History will show that Bush kicked us further on down the road of insurmountable debt and that Obama didn't kick us further down the road but instead launched us down it in a freakin' missile.

History will show that there was a surplus during the Clinton Admin....which Bush pissed away with his 'trickle-down' economics, and tax-cuts for his cronies with businesses....Housing bubble burst - Madoff....unemployment is above 8.5% nationally, 11% in my state....and what do you expect Barry to do? Let these people starve....?

The fact is that the people making decisions about stuff aren't going to be around when the shit hits the fan....our kids will. So washington doesn't really seem to give a rat's ass about policies that affect 20-30 years from now....

[Seven Wishes2]

History will show Bush Jr. to be unequiovocally the worst President of the past 235 years, and in particular the GOP policies of this past decade to be the worst since Hooverism nearly destroyed America in the 20's.

History will show that Bush kicked us further on down the road of insurmountable debt and that Obama didn't kick us further down the road but instead launched us down it in a freakin' missile.

How does that work, since the deficit increased at a higher percentage rate per annum than it has under Obama? Give me a break, Dave. Weak.

[hoagiepete]

Just paid our taxes. If anyone says the (so called) rich doesn't pay their fair share of taxes can kiss my ivory white ass.

[Behshad]

Just paid our taxes. If anyone says the (so called) rich doesn't pay their fair share of taxes can kiss my ivory white ass.

Define rich! Rich to me a make $1m or more /year (not your business income , but your own personal income )

[hoagiepete]

Just paid our taxes. If anyone says the (so called) rich doesn't pay their fair share of taxes can kiss my ivory white ass.

Define rich! Rich to me a make $1m or more /year (not your business income , but your own personal income )

According to Obama...anywhere from $125,000 to $250,000...depending on when he's talking. Utter nonsense.

[StevePerryHair]

Just paid our taxes. If anyone says the (so called) rich doesn't pay their fair share of taxes can kiss my ivory white ass.

Define rich! Rich to me a make $1m or more /year (not your business income , but your own personal income )

According to Obama...anywhere from $125,000 to $250,000...depending on when he's talking. Utter nonsense.

That income sounds pretty rich to me! I'll take it!!

[The_Noble_Cause]

Just paid our taxes. If anyone says the (so called) rich doesn't pay their fair share of taxes can kiss my ivory white ass.

By historic standards, they don't. And thanks to the recession, the lower and middle classes increasingly have no income to pay taxes on.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Poor Glenn Beck simply can't get a break. First, the GOP establishment turned their backs on him for his wild-eyed "global communist-caliphate theory" resulting in his dismissal from FOX News. Now, even more Cons are piling on, outing him as the plagarist con-man he is.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/18/thedc ... ion/print/

[S2M]

Poor Glenn Beck simply can't get a break. First, the GOP establishment turned their backs on him for his wild-eyed "global communist-caliphate theory" resulting in his dismissal from FOX News. Now, even more Cons are piling on, outing him as the plagarist con-man he is.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/18/thedc ... ion/print/

Non-issue....it is the message. Just like the article says. Does Obama, or any other President, for that matter, cite his speech writer before every speech? I thought not....next.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Non-issue....it is the message. Just like the article says. Does Obama, or any other President, for that matter, cite his speech writer before every speech? I thought not....next.

Those presidential speechwriters are getting paid for their intellectual property, and enter into the position knowing full-well that they won't be getting shout-outs at the podium. The people Beck is ripping off do not work for his show(s) and should have their original material recognized accordingly. Horrible comparison. Try again.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Just paid our taxes. If anyone says the (so called) rich doesn't pay their fair share of taxes can kiss my ivory white ass.

By historic standards, they don't.

Compared to what time frame of history ?

Are you comparing todays standards a) to the time time frame between 1776 and 1913 when (save for the civil war) when there was no income tax (and most rightfully understood that an income tax is a violation of individuals rights . Or perhaps the 1920's when top tax rates were in their mid 20's and growth was soaring. Compared to those those time periods everyone is paying too high a share of taxes.
to
or are you comparing todays standard to the period between 1928 - 1933 when Herbert Hoover raised top rates of taxes from 23 to 65 percent creating the great depression. Or the 1950s when the top tax rate was 90 + percent and the consequences of the fact that revenues to the government were low was masked by and made up for by the massive compartive advantage the US economy had over a world which had been completely tore up by by war?
If so they they dont pay their high share of the taxes, but going back to this situation isn't particularily desirable.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Compared to what time frame of history ?

One that is actually still relevant. Like, say, the last 100 years.
Besides, most of your economic history is wildly revisionist and one-dimensional, omitting basic things like tariffs funding the gov’t pre-income tax, or the roaring twenties being fueled by fake bubble growth, or the fact that imports/exports were a minor part of GDP post-WW2, so the US comparative advantage is extremely overstated. Anyone can play this game of pick n’ choose cafeteria economics. Too many partisan over-simplifications in your post to tear apart.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Compared to what time frame of history ?

One that is actually still relevant. Like, say, the last 100 years.
Besides, most of your economic history is wildly revisionist and one-dimensional, omitting basic things like tariffs funding the gov’t pre-income tax, or the roaring twenties being fueled by fake bubble growth, or the fact that imports/exports were a minor part of GDP post-WW2, so the US comparative advantage is extremely overstated. Anyone can play this game of pick n’ choose cafeteria economics. Too many partisan over-simplifications in your post to tear apart.

Well, I' m not partisan. As a minarchist, I dislike most political parties, (esp the GOP) .

You are right - govt was funded pre- income tax by excise taxes, customs duties, and other fees that that tax payer could opt into by not buying particular goods. No one was co-erced into paying an income tax which violates principles of individual rights. BUT it IS very relevant given the fact that people are arguing for the replacement of income tax with a consumption tax. The only that makes the argument irrelevant is the fact that replacing the income tax with at consumption tax would mean that the US govt has less power to run a massive military industrial complex, fight hairbrained and wasteful wars, enforce massive regulation or run a cradle to grave welfare states.

Incidentally, the simlply expansion in the roaring 20's was a phase of the business cycle that happens and naturally corrects in a free market economy. Herbert Hoovers massive tax increases along with the egregious unneeded hike in Tariffs (Smoot Hawley) depressed the business cycle and turned recession into depression. Also, disagree with you regarding the importance of comparative advantage inthe last 60 years. Agree there wasn't as high level of imports and exports on the 50s , but that's the exact point,- there weren't foreign good alternatives for US domestic consumers, alternatives for business investors to shift investment overseas . Easy to keep spending and investment in the US, businesses in the US back then, regardless of what tax level was charged.

[hoagiepete]

Compared to what time frame of history ?

One that is actually still relevant. Like, say, the last 100 years.
Besides, most of your economic history is wildly revisionist and one-dimensional, omitting basic things like tariffs funding the gov’t pre-income tax, or the roaring twenties being fueled by fake bubble growth, or the fact that imports/exports were a minor part of GDP post-WW2, so the US comparative advantage is extremely overstated. Anyone can play this game of pick n’ choose cafeteria economics. Too many partisan over-simplifications in your post to tear apart.

Kind of like Clinton and the internet and housing bubbles... which burst for GW.

[Eric]

I wrote this last weekend: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/art ... 1764d06e06

Read this today: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/1 ... t-now.html

[The_Noble_Cause]

Kind of like Clinton and the internet and housing bubbles...which burst for GW.

Which was then replaced by an artificial housing bubble...
Funny how Bill Clinton still manages to be the Right's go-to whipping boy, even when it concerns topics like the roaring twenties, when he wasn't even born.

[hoagiepete]

Kind of like Clinton and the internet and housing bubbles...which burst for GW.

Which was then replaced by an artificial housing bubble...
Funny how Bill Clinton still manages to be the Right's go-to whipping boy, even when it concerns topics like the roaring twenties, when he wasn't even born.

Not whipping him at all and again you twist my comments out of context. You mentioned "artificial bubbles" and it immediately brought the internet phenomenon and housing to mind as both could be deemed as "artificial" and made Clinton seem like he did more than did.

As much as I couldn't stand him, I don't think he was a bad president. What the GOP did to him was frickin' rediculous. Just pointing out he was one lucky SOB.

[Seven Wishes2]

I found this on a blog on yahoo this evening...it's actually pretty funny, even though it's poorly written.

The GOP believes that sex should only be for making babies. That means it’s only for married people; children have no business knowing about it and homosexuals have no business doing it (unless its Bob Barr, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, or Larry Craig). All pregnancies should be carried to term, either as a blessed gift to a happy family, or as divine punishment for dirty whores.

They also believe that Government should never be involved in anything except a woman’s right to choose and two men having sex. Unless at least one of those men is Bob Barr, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, or Larry Craig.

They believe that the text of a religion which advocates the stoning of adulterers like Clinton.

But it was OK when Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, John Ensign and Mark Sanford did it because it equated to eating shellfish and soul searching.

[hoagiepete]

I found this on a blog on yahoo this evening...it's actually pretty funny, even though it's poorly written.

The GOP believes that sex should only be for making babies. That means it’s only for married people; children have no business knowing about it and homosexuals have no business doing it (unless its Bob Barr, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, or Larry Craig). All pregnancies should be carried to term, either as a blessed gift to a happy family, or as divine punishment for dirty whores.

They also believe that Government should never be involved in anything except a woman’s right to choose and two men having sex. Unless at least one of those men is Bob Barr, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, or Larry Craig.

They believe that the text of a religion which advocates the stoning of adulterers like Clinton.

But it was OK when Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, John Ensign and Mark Sanford did it because it equated to eating shellfish and soul searching.

Classic example of why the GOP is so fucked up. If a fiscal conservative, social moderate party could ever successfuly emerge, they would kick both the R and D's ass.

Having said that, you could cite a million examples of how the D's are hypocrites as well. The GOP has no monopoly on this kind of thing.

[Seven Wishes2]

FartFinder, you know damned well speculators control oil prices. Get a life.

[S2M]

FartFinder, you know damned well speculators control oil prices. Get a life.

Speculators DO NOT control oil prices......the dollar controls the price. Why do you think there is an inverse proportion with the worth of the dollar, and the price of oil? Wise up.

[Seven Wishes2]

Whatever. You're wrong.

More than 75% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds, not the value of the dollar or real-world supply issues. It has to do with control of oil and its price.

Nymex and the ICE Futures control global benchmark oil prices which in turn set most of the freely traded oil cargo. They do so via oil futures contracts on the two grades of crude oil (Brent and WTI).

The "Brent" oil is used to value as much of crude oil produced in global oil markets each day. The Brent price is published by a private oil industry publication, Platt’s. Major oil producers including use it as a benchmark for pricing the crude they produce.

From a Senate report:

“Until recently, US energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States, like the NYMEX, which are subject to extensive oversight by the CFTC, including ongoing monitoring to detect and prevent price manipulation or fraud. In recent years, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts that look and are structured just like futures contracts, but which are traded on unregulated OTC electronic markets. Because of their similarity to futures contracts they are often called “futures look-alikes.”

The only practical difference between futures look-alike contracts and futures contracts is that the look-alikes are traded in unregulated markets whereas futures are traded on regulated exchanges. The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th Congress.

The impact on market oversight has been substantial. NYMEX traders, for example, are required to keep records of all trades and report large trades to the CFTC. These Large Trader Reports, together with daily trading data providing price and volume information, are the CFTC’s primary tools to gauge the extent of speculation in the markets and to detect, prevent, and prosecute price manipulation. CFTC Chairman Reuben Jeffrey recently stated: “The Commission’s Large Trader information system is one of the cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or more traders to attempt manipulation.”

In contrast to trades conducted on the NYMEX, traders on unregulated OTC electronic exchanges are not required to keep records or file Large Trader Reports with the CFTC, and these trades are exempt from routine CFTC oversight. In contrast to trades conducted on regulated futures exchanges, there is no limit on the number of contracts a speculator may hold on an unregulated OTC electronic exchange, no monitoring of trading by the exchange itself, and no reporting of the amount of outstanding contracts (“open interest”) at the end of each day.”

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

FartFinder, you know damned well speculators control oil prices. Get a life.

Speculators DO NOT control oil prices......the dollar controls the price. Why do you think there is an inverse proportion with the worth of the dollar, and the price of oil? Wise up.

Agree, and its worth noting that a speculator could cash in from a declining oil price by taking a short positon - in much the same way that speculators made money by shorting stocks during the stock makret decline of late 2008. Speculation is a function and result of supply and price, not a cause of it

Its not just the dollar that controls the price (although thats a big part what dollar using consumers end up paying) . The fact that OPEC is a cartel and can distort the market plays into it. Furtermore the fact that there is a moratorium on drilling in the gulf an none in Anwar, the fact that regulations are holding up shale oiil production in the West are other distorting factors also distort the market. Therefore the oil market doesnt run like a fully free market like it ought to if it were producers would be making moves to increase supply - this action WOULD FORCE the hand of speculators, making them want to take short positons on oil futures

[S2M]

The low for a barrel of oil in 1998 was $12.....and by 2004 it was up to $56....that is 366% in 6 years.....

[Seven Wishes2]

The dollar can affect the price and does have something to do with it, as does supply and demand.

However, the OTC and ICE markets are completely unregulated.

Prices are higher than ever. The dollar has regained most of its purchasing power lost under the incompetent Bush "Administration". Gasoline stockpiles are at a three-year high. Distillates have inventory levels that are now above where they were last year. Natural gas inventories reside well above their five-year average.

The current cost of oil is largely an aberration caused by greedy speculators in bed with Big Oil.

[S2M]

FF, your graph is interesting....as it shows that from a certain point it started to rise. And there has always been welfare receipients since before I was born....yet as recent as 2007 it was only 8.7%....clearly this is not an individual person issue. Something sparked it. And that something was washington/business...please don't name drop any president's names either. Don't wanna get into Bush/Obama debate. Cause while you are arguing over whose fault it is - you aren't solving the problem.

You and Dan seem to have this hell bent attitude against poor people. Regardless of their situation. You don't mince words that you look down upon people who aren't as successful as you, and you revel in the fact that you have 'made it' without help from anyone. Matt, as recently as today, has said the same exact thing.....

Where I do not feel that welfare, or ANY social program is a long-term solution(jeesh welfare should have been abolished YEARS ago), I feel that if there were no social programs - this would be a third world country with high-ranking rich, and low-ranking destitute squalor....

[Melissa]

-this would be a third world country with high-ranking rich, and low-ranking destitute squalor....

Nah I don't believe it would be that bad. There are plenty of people on social programs that still somehow have plenty of money to blow on things like iPhones. Unless there is some kind of low-income pricing and plans from Apple and AT&T I'm just not aware of

[S2M]

-this would be a third world country with high-ranking rich, and low-ranking destitute squalor....

Nah I don't believe it would be that bad. There are plenty of people on social programs that still somehow have plenty of money to blow on things like iPhones. Unless there is some kind of low-income pricing and plans from Apple and AT&T I'm just not aware of

I said NO SOCIAL PROGRAMS.....

[Seven Wishes2]

Since Obama's budget went into effect, the increase has been 1% according to your jaded graph.

Move along, son.