President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

Since Faux is a disinfotainment network, aren't they except from the American Media Standard Practices clause?

no more (or less) than any of the other mainstream disinformation services... they all skew their reporting..

Bullshit. Fox is run by Nixon's former spin doctor and Rush Limbaugh's former executive producer. CNN may have James Carville giving commentary, but he's not the network CEO. BIG difference. I do agree that all networks are skewed, but it's very rarely a left or right thing.

Make up your mind.. either they are or they aren't...

Make up my mind about what? That FOX News was created with the express purpose of promoting a right wing agenda? MSNBC has now very late in the game adopted a left wing stance, but when they first started, it was a right wing cespool. Aside from those two, I don't think the multitude of local news affiliates across the country fall easily (and simplistically) into black and white, left vs. right, categories. The biggest bias in news is sensationalism/sex and advertising $$$.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Politifact does some good stuff occasionally but they've been a left-leaning organization ever since their inception. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they'd nominate Fox every year.

No, it's not. Right wingers think everything from Snopes to AARP to The Weather Channel is promoting a Soros-funded leftist agenda.

[conversationpc]

Politifact does some good stuff occasionally but they've been a left-leaning organization ever since their inception. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they'd nominate Fox every year.

No, it's not. Right wingers think everything from Snopes to AARP to The Weather Channel is promoting a Soros-funded leftist agenda.

I don't have any opinion on the others but Politifact's bias is blatantly obvious. Any honest person knows that the human condition (lying, cheating, stealing) is equally prevalent on both sides of the political aisle, yet Politifact consistently scrutinizes conservative politicians much more closely than they do liberal ones. Honestly, the more I see out of the Republicans grandstanding over this whole debt ceiling thing, using it for political gain, I think they deserve it (don't get me started on the Dems, either) but that doesn't excuse Politifact's obvious bias.

[Andrew]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqA8oxY6aao

LOL

Seriously...does anyone actually watch and believe Crox news?

[conversationpc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqA8oxY6aao

LOL

Seriously...does anyone actually watch and believe Crox news?

Yeah, boy that Jon Stewart is a bastion of political truth.

[S2M]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqA8oxY6aao

LOL

Seriously...does anyone actually watch and believe Crox news?

Yeah, boy that Jon Stewart is a bastion of political truth.

He's a comedian...first. And said as much to O'reilly one night. Truth is, left leaning comedians are exponentially more funny than their right leaning counterparts....and more often than not, spot on with their musings.....No matter your political affiliations - the repubs are comic gold.

[conversationpc]

No matter your political affiliations - the repubs are comic gold.

I don't know about that. The Clinton years were a gold mine for comedians and they took advantage for sure. That had to be the best administration for comedians ever. For that matter, Obama's administration should be also but half of the comedians out there are too scared they'll be labeled as racists if they're tough on him.

[steveo777]

Shouldn't this thread title be edited to read "first and final term"?

[conversationpc]

Shouldn't this thread title be edited to read "first and final term"?

That would be nice. However, the denizens of the opposition party aren't doing anything to distinguish themselves from the Chosen One.

[slucero]

eventually it will be re-titled "Modern Day Wilson".....

[Seven Wishes2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqA8oxY6aao

LOL

Seriously...does anyone actually watch and believe Crox news?

Yeah, boy that Jon Stewart is a bastion of political truth.

His PRESENTATION is extremely slanted, and deliberately so...but he doesn't lie. He just lets the GOP (and sometimes the Donkeys as well) do what they're best at.

[Seven Wishes2]

White House: Budget cuts to president's office hurt debt efforts

Proposed House cuts to the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) budget will hurt administration efforts to cut the deficit, the White House argues.

The Obama administration made the argument in comments on H.R. 2434, the 2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. That bill could be on the House floor as early as next week, and would decrease funding for the EOP from $705 million to $640 million.

Wow. So, slashing benefits to veterans and the elderly is fair game to you, though? Let's not touch military spending, though. Never mind the debt ceiling has been raised 72 times since Kennedy, or that the only reason the Democrats voted against it once (in 2006) was because of their unsuccessful (albeit valid) attempt to demand the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq be included in Bush's "budget".

Never mind Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which "helped" his Administration create a grand total of 3 million jobs in 10 years (compared to 24 million under Clinton), triple the deficit, and double unemployment, also added (per the CBO) almost $2 trillion to the defict, or that Bush's bailout of Wall Street (which, along with the auto bailout, helped save America from a Bush-caused Great Depression) cost $800 million. All told, Bush and GOP policies between 2001 and 2009 added $6 trillion to the deficit. Nope, NOW is the time to "take a stand" with the debt ceiling. Never mind that supply-side theory has been disavowed and villified by Andrew Samwick, Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, who stated that:

You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

[Seven Wishes2]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion dollars over the following decade.[41] The CBO also completed a study in 2005 analyzing a hypothetical 10% income tax cut and concluded that under various scenarios there would be minimal offsets to the loss of revenue. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/stmt/2003/statement_signed.pdf?nocdn=1

In 2003, the Wall Street Journal declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modeling performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) failed to support the most extreme claims of supply-side policies. It was also suggested that Dan Crippen may have lost his chance at reappointment as head of the CBO for failing to support supply-side inspired dynamic scoring.

Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the progressive, nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts", which states that:

“ Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

No there is no direct causality between cutting taxes and the revenue coming in in the short term. There is an apparent correlation between the two though as post the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan tax cuts and Clinton capital gains reduction (1996) there has been an increase in revenue to the govt. The problem is though that this is a false debate and I agree that those Republicans who want to cut taxes so they can get more revenue to spends are dead wrong and are just as wrong as the democrats who want to tax more and spend more. It wrong to tax because it is immoral. People own their own bodies and what they produce with their bodies. When you enslave people thus they loose the incentive to work hard and end up being less productive. That has a number of long term negative effects on the economy in terms of productivity, innovation whether or or not there is a net short term.

It also needs to be mentioned that WORST tax you can put on the middle and lower class is the "tax" of higher govt spending. When the govt spends a dollar that is one less dollar that can be spent in the private sector being invested , hiring people. Anyone who believes in govt spending- whether democrat or republican have their jackboots firmly on the back of the neck of middle and lower class Americans

[Seven Wishes2]

People coming through the door (literally or metaphorically) and buying things is what creates jobs. As a business owner, I can tell you we employ the right number of people to meet our business demand, and it's not predicated on how much money is in our business bank account.

The fundamentally sound demand-side theory basically proves the following theorem: in a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps the economy moving.

Ayn Rand herself knew she was perpetuating a double-standard: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html.

[Memorex]

It's silly to sit here and say look what Bush did, ne na na na na, look what Obama did, nannny nanny nanny. That's how my kids talk when they are in trouble.

Fact is that there is a problem before us and how we handle it should be based on the right way, not the dem or republican way.

I still don't understand this tax the rich mantra, but like i said, I'll pay the proper amount when Government can show me that they are responsible with my money. And clearly they (dems or republicans) are not. Not one person here can justify the scope of the federal government and the absolute disregard they have for the money they take from me.

I live in MN where we have been experiencing a state government shutdown for a couple weeks. For one, I haven't noticed and for 2, I say it should stay shut down until they figure out how to run it properly.

We do not need more taxes under any sound exonimic plan - UNLESS - the goal is to further support the many many mistakes they have made so far. If you like the waste, fraud, and welfare state then write a damn check and leave me alone.

[RossValoryRocks]

Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the progressive, nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts", which states that:

First PROGRESSIVE makes it partisan...there aren't ANY Progressive Republicans...well...execpt George W. Bush and Co. Go to www.epi.org and check out the board of directors...MOST of them are sitting officials on LABOR UNIONS including the President's personal favorite the SEIU. Yeah no bias...Come on man...do better than this.

I can go search and find 2 dozen articles by reputable economists that refute every word you say about lowering taxes no increasing government revenue.

As Memorex said the Repubs and Dems are 2 sides to the same coin...Lower Taxes...increase revenue and then spend it...or raise taxes, (temporarily) increase revenue and then spend it. At no point does either of the 2 parties gives a rats ass because they HAVE to spend money they have taken from others to ensure their varied constituencies will re-elect them.

It's a shell game with pandering to special interests paid for by our tax money. And you all sit here and try and score magic points and thump your chests while BOTH parties are busy lubing one up to shove in our asses...but hey! At least they used lube!

Short term increasing taxes with boost revenue, until people figure out how to hide it, then revenue drops and the economy suffers as people really feel the pinch of taxes...long term cutting taxes boosts revenue and spurs investment...So raising taxes while probably necessary in the short term to shore up the governments funds, is detrimental, long term cutting taxes will help more, but ONLY if the politicians can STOP FUCKING SPENDING our money.

If we don't increase the debt ceiling we can still pay our debts...and yes programs will suffer and have to be cut...much like when a regular person loses their job and suddenly that cable packacge with every channel on it has to be cut to basic cable. We are fast approaching a point where federal revenues with almost be entirely eaten up by servicing the debt...at which time the entire system collapses...which is EXACTLY what they want.

[Seven Wishes2]

I think the disagreements stem over which programs should be cut, and to what extent. However, most economists, as I have already shown, are unified in their belief that major cuts right now will cost America almost one million jobs within 12 months, and will bring us back into a deep recession, if not a depression.

Say what you want about government spending, but supply-side theory does NOT work. It never has and it never will.

[Memorex]

Keep the people fighting. Left hates right, right hates left. Meanwhile the right and left in Washington and state capitals go to dinner together and shake hands on how they will spend our money. They decide what science moves forward, what groups get catered to this week, what boondoggle gets funded this year. So the people are lost in anger and confusion and protective of their beliefs only to be reamed in the ass by those they defend.

It's gotten pretty messed up - all with good intentions of course. But between government trying to get into my wallet and into my home, I sure don't feel too positive about it all.

I'm so thoroughly bothered by the hatred. I'm not a Palin or Bachman fan at all, but in any other world these are strong, independent, accomplished women. If they were my sisters, I would celebrate their accomplishments. But the left treats them like utter dirt. Just because they think differently. Obama and Bush both believe strongly in their views and made decisions accordingly. But I am continually shocked at the complete lack of respect shown to these men. Is that when it all falls apart, when we have lost our civility?

The left says Bush is stupid. The right says Obama is stupid. Quite frankly, both of them are quite intelligent. I think people should look to Bill Clinton as an example in many ways on how to act when you disagree with someone. The man probably disagrees with Bush to his core (and I bet a lot with Obama). He manages to be respectful in his criticism. And at the end of the day, both men could shake Clinton's hand and know he treated them fairly. If all people acted similar, imagine what could be accomplished.

Not to mention the tail we would all get!

[Seven Wishes2]

One of the best post I've ever read on this forum.

My only disagreement would be with your assessment of Palin. Whereas I respect Bachmann immensely (even though her views, frankly, disgust me), Palin deserves no such accolades - if for no other reasons than her intentionally toxic vitriol and the fact that she's quit her only two publicly elected positions halfway through their respective terms.

Bravo, though. Superbly written post.

[Memorex]

One of the best post I've ever read on this forum.

My only disagreement would be with your assessment of Palin. Whereas I respect Bachmann immensely (even though her views, frankly, disgust me), Palin deserves no such accolades - if for no other reasons than her intentionally toxic vitriol and the fact that she's quit her only two publicly elected positions halfway through their respective terms.

Bravo, though. Superbly written post.

Thanks. I kind of see Palin like Britney Spears. The immense heat from the spotlight is something beyond what 99.9% of the country can even comprehend. For example, the whole clothes thing - when her campaign bought expensive clothes for her to wear. The days and days that actual real journalists spent on that was INSANE. Some now complain about Michelle Obama's wardrobe and the expense. I'm sorry, but these are people running for the highest offices or representing our country. If they have the money, by all means don't wear Wal-mart.

I've been through a few rough situations in my life where I felt like all of my family and friends were looking at me wrong. I could not imagine being treated like these folks. So I think Palin leaving the governorship had more to do with that then anything. I don't fault her - but I would also never vote for her.

[RossValoryRocks]

I think the disagreements stem over which programs should be cut, and to what extent. However, most economists, as I have already shown, are unified in their belief that major cuts right now will cost America almost one million jobs within 12 months, and will bring us back into a deep recession, if not a depression.

Say what you want about government spending, but supply-side theory does NOT work. It never has and it never will.

If you look at revenues afetr tax cuts they go up...period...the movement of money is what creates it...when the government takes it away via taxes money stops moving revenues drop. It's simple common sense. Quit listening to blow hard economists who are on the government payroll. The fact speak for themselves...EVERY time there has been a reduction in taxes the revenues coming into the government (Federal, State and local) has gone up...I could care less what some economist says...it's simple math...you are smart enough to let go of your iideology, try it...it's enlightening.

If you want we can go back and forth with various links to various sites that support each of our viewpoints, or you can see the simple fact that the money you make shouldn't be taken away from you...be you a minimum wage worker or a multi billionaire. You earned it, you should keep it.

That along with our extraordinarily high corporate tax rates and a tax code that sucks billions of dollars out of our economy just to enforce it and more billions thrown away by companies and individuals to comply. Simplifiy the tax code, eliminate all loop holes and find a rate everyone can prosper under.

The biggest problem is the government...it was not designed to be this big, and we shouldn't live in a nanny state...unfortunately some people believe in the cradle to grave bit...and they vote, they vote for who gives them shit.

[Seven Wishes2]

With all due respect, Stu, there is simply NO evidence to suggest revenues go up when tax rates on the wealthy go down.

Remember what happened with the Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts? Both were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, the additional spending Bush Sr. and Reagan engaged in has something do with that, but the bottom line is simple: in both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.

From 1982 to 1989 income tax receipts climbed from $298 billion to $446 billion--a 50% increase. From 1990 to 1997 the income taxes rose from $467 to an estimated $710 billion--a 52% increase. GDP growth in constant dollars was much higher during the Clinton years than it was during the Reagan years.

[slucero]

like athletes who post motivational slogans for all their teammates to see.. Congress should pin this to their locker room wall...

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

People coming through the door (literally or metaphorically) and buying things is what creates jobs. As a business owner, I can tell you we employ the right number of people to meet our business demand, and it's not predicated on how much money is in our business bank account.

The fundamentally sound demand-side theory basically proves the following theorem: in a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps the economy moving.

.

I'm sure you run your business for the same reason that I run my own business (a interim management/staffing agency) and every owner runs his own business - so you can make a profit to do the things you want whether that be buying house having a family, owning a boat , following night ranger around the world on tour, build a penthouse you can fill with whores, or whatever else incentivizes you. You hire people to meet that business plan (which of course includes what demand/sales are coming). Of course if your profits are under pressure through taxes or if regulation is making it difficult to hire, you see if you can get by with out replacing that worker who has just resigned or retired.

No one is disputing that demand is an important.Of course you need someone to buy The question is where does demand comes from in the first place. To provide an example, suppose everybody eats toast for breakfeast. Bread is in demand. Suppose some innovator comes along and invents Rice Krispies and Captain crunch. At first its expensive as its a niche food and is high priced. Incentivsed by that high price our inventor starts making more of it to capitalise on that high price , but soon there is too much if lying around because its high price. Price comes down and now mom will buy in when Johnny whines in the supermarket for it. Demand goes up when the price of the now more aboundant commodity goes down.

Now the problem with government spending to stimulate demand is that it can't figure out where to invest (as it doesn't react to pricing) some hot shot in the government sees that folks in Camden NJ is struggling so the government decides to start funding the tomato soup factory in town based on the fact that they see demand for cereal and for what they know folks just might like to have soup for breakfast. Of course no dumbass wants soup for breakfast, so the investment is wasted, soup just sits in the warehouse, no demand is created.

When govt spends you just get production for which stuff that no one wants. Its like dropping off a bus load of 400 pound women outside of a pick up bar. guess what no ones going home happy- no one there is interested in buying and its a waste of the bus driver's saturday night and gas money.

You can only create demand when some one is incentivised to produce something to be demanded.
This is fact an age old economic law- Says law that what must be demanded must be produced or thought of first
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say's_law

[conversationpc]

This is very interesting and, actually, sort of hilarious...

The top recipients of donations from News Corp from 1989 to 2010 have all been Democrats, according to the Sunlight Foundation. The top three are recorded as: Barack Obama ($368,669), Hillary Clinton ($298,525), and John Kerry ($157,901).

Overall, the donations have been evenly split between both parties: Democrats received 51 percent of donations while Republicans received 49 percent. The data is based on research from the Center for Responsive Politics, the National Institute for Money in State Politics, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Project on Government Oversight, and USASpending.gov. The totals for News Corp’s contributions include money from employees of the organization and family members....

“It's been reported that Murdoch has close, and sometimes inappropriate, relationships with conservative politicians in the [United Kingdom],” wrote Sunlight reporter Ryan Sibley. “It's also commonly believed that he has close ties to what we consider conservative politicians here in the U.S. as well, but campaign-finance records suggest he has ties to both sides of the aisle.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/murdo ... ama-52557/

[slucero]

wow.. check out Russian Debt/GDP vs. USA Debt/GDP.....


Russia





USA

[RedWingFan]

What you see there is the phasing out our socialism and the phasing in of socialism.

[Seven Wishes2]

Considering the private sector LOST jobs in eight years under Bush, and that Dumbya doubled the unemployment rate and tripled the deficit, your point carries no weight.

And you do realize two of those CEO's you quoted have specialized in outsourcing American jobs abroad thanks to Bush's deregulation and corporate tax loopholes, right?

On a separate note, we might agree on something I listened to on the radio today. Apparently, certain low-income districts in Michigan will now offer 100% tuition scholarships to ANY INNER SCHOOL CHILD who graduates high school. No matter the GPA...as long as they have a degree, they get free college. Now, I had to work 40 plus hours per week while attending classes full time for four years. These kids, many of whom probably won't invest diddly into their high school educations, get a free ride? Ridiculous.

[Seven Wishes2]

Letter to Majority Leader November 16, 1983

Dear Howard:

This letter is to ask for your help and support, and that of your colleagues, in the passage of an increase in the limit on the public debt.

As Secretary Regan has told you, the Treasury's cash balances have reached a dangerously low point. Henceforth, the Treasury Department cannot guarantee that the Federal Government will have sufficient cash on any one day to meet all of its mandated expenses, and thus the United States could be forced to default on its obligations for the first time in its history.

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequences of a default -- or even the serious prospect of default -- by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

I want to thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent problem and for your assistance in passing an extension of the debt ceiling.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan