President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RedWingFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MjQ17k ... r_embedded

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The marginal rate - before exemptions and loopholes - on every dollar over $1 million is 33%, the lowest rate in history.

Wrong actually Marginal rates on capital gains were lower in 1920's and before that. When rates were higher in the 1950's and 1960's the US had a global competitive advantage, (no Signapore, China, or Korea or Brazil to compete with.) We can't get away with those high rates today like we did then we have global competitors.

And Donna, this is the first time there has actually been ANY debate about the debt ceiling being raised. EVER. It's always been a simple up or down vote on a one page bill and has NEVER been denied or altered.

and look where never standing up to and debating the debt ceiling got us - to the mess we are in right now.

A quick lesson on the "trickle down" theory that has been thoroughly refuted as viable. History has shown it simply does not work. Hoover tried the “trickle down” theory, and it led to the Great Depression - often called the Republican Depression because it was their financial philosophy that led to the collapse of the economy. Tax cuts for the rich did not work and things got worse. You can see the same problem repeat itself nowadays, due to the deregulation of the financial industry.

Herbert Hoover believed in expansionist government. He reversed the Coolidge tax cuts and passed a massive tarriff wall and actually did advocate govt involvement in fixing the business cycle . these are things left democrats support.

Roosevelt got into office, raised taxes on the rich, created jobs for the poor and turned things around.

wrong Roosevelt would have lost the 1942 election unemployment was so high. The nation rallied behind the president only because of WWII. Roosevelt's new deal didn't fix the depression any more than Obama's stimulus programme fixed our the current recession. The business cycle finally, after being distorted by Roosevelts intervention picked back up.

Reagan employed Hoover’s failed trickle down theory again in the ‘80s and again it did not work. The rich got richer, but the poor got poorer and the deficit more than tripled. Bush Sr. continued the failed policy of his immediate predecessor.

No if anything Reagan returned to Coolidge's policies. His mistake was to allow Congress to spend too much without standing up to them.
Bush Snr raised taxes on a slowing economy to disastrous effect (what you think we should do)

Clinton took a more progressive approach by turning Hoover model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they would spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs directly. Revenues were up! Tens of millions of jobs and thousands of new millionaires were created while Clinton was in office - more so than than at any other time in our history.

Clinton was not a progressive. Ever heard of triangulation or the southern leadership council? Clinton agreed to budget cuts , Welfare reform, and a capital gains tax cut in 1996- what you call trickle down. Clinton's economic policy was nearly the same as Reagans.

So, what happened next? Dumbya immediately created a need to raise the debt level to pay for an unjustified tax cut in 2001. Predictably (and before 9/11) the nation lost jobs and there were fewer new millionaires. Not learning from his past mistakes, Bush pushed through yet more tax cuts in 2003, 2005 and 2006 -- all while expanding the military, the largest single component of the budget. He and his lap dog Republican Congress never learned from their mistakes. As a result, the national debt has increased an average of $1.5 billion per day since the beginning of 2002.

The facts also show that it most often takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending. The truth is that the Republicans are the party of “borrow and spend”. They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off paying till later for our security today. They prefer to see our children pay for their debt (although they accuse Democrats of the same even though the data proves them wrong). Neo-con economics ran up over an 9.5 trillion dollar debt in eight years.

the Obama debt is up 23% in two years, and most of that is from his Stimulus act and discretionary spending (things he signed in to law or chose to spend) In terms of ideology and policy Hoover= Roosevelt= Bush Sn = Bush Jr = Obama and none of em had a a praiseworthy economic track record.

[Seven Wishes2]

Twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion, the average rate of GDP growth was 2.94%, the unemployment rate averaged 6.75% the inflation rate averaged 4.96%, the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 7.57%, and the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%. Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.

Twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents (before Obama, who inherited what was essentially a Depression from Bush) increased the national debt by $719.5 billion. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion, the average rate of GDP growth was 3.92%, the unemployment rate averaged 5.1%, the inflation rate averaged 4.26%, the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 6.96%, and the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%. Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.

Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.

Even using “lag times” of 3, 4 and 5 years in assigning responsibility for economic performance to a President - in each case, economic growth was higher in Democratic administrations than in Republican administrations, unemployment was lower in Democratic than in Republican administrations, inflation rate was lower in Democratic than in Republican administrations.

Wrong actually Marginal rates on capital gains were lower in 1920's and before that. When rates were higher in the 1950's and 1960's the US had a global competitive advantage, (no Signapore, China, or Korea or Brazil to compete with.) We can't get away with those high rates today like we did then we have global competitors.

Yeah, things went so well in the 20's when Hoover employed the trickle-up theory and lowered the rates. We only suffered the worst economic depression in the history of the world. Think before you post.

and look where never standing up to and debating the debt ceiling got us - to the mess we are in right now.

That's true. However, cutting spending on job-producing programs right as we're emerging from Bush Jr.'s second recession (and near Depression) is NOT going to solve anything - it's going to make it worse, and that's reflected by the market's response to the debt deal. Both sides got it wrong - some minor adjustments to the Big 3 will ensure its continued solvency for another 25 years, and revenues have to go up - even the heads of the 3 biggest credit rating agencies say we will not recover until the marginal rate on the rich goes back to Clinton-era levels.

Herbert Hoover believed in expansionist government. He reversed the Coolidge tax cuts and passed a massive tarriff wall and actually did advocate govt involvement in fixing the business cycle . these are things left democrats support.

Hoover's main legacy was lowering the very successful post-WWI higher marginal rates by 200% and leading the country, single-handedly, into a Great Depression.

wrong Roosevelt would have lost the 1942 election unemployment was so high. The nation rallied behind the president only because of WWII. Roosevelt's new deal didn't fix the depression any more than Obama's stimulus programme fixed our the current recession. The business cycle finally, after being distorted by Roosevelts intervention picked back up.

Wrong yet again. FDR brought the Hoover-caused unemployment rate down from a staggering 21.7% to 12.9% in 1941. No way in HELL he would have lost that election.

No if anything Reagan returned to Coolidge's policies. His mistake was to allow Congress to spend too much without standing up to them.
Bush Snr raised taxes on a slowing economy to disastrous effect (what you think we should do)

Reagan increased federal spending by $466B (69%) over what he inherited, averaged a %177B deficit (+180%), added $1.40 trillion to the debt (+178%), enjoyed a pretty substantial increase in the GDP (+77%), but increased the debt to GDP ratio by 15%. He also increased the size of the federal government by 400,000.

Even adjusted for inflation, Reagan still increased federal spending by 22%, averaged a deficit that was 99% more than Carter’s average, increased the public debt by 100%, and as the adjusted GDP increase was only 28%, that 15% increase in debt to GDP was a lot more substantial. All the while (per the CBO), he was proposing over $770 billion dolllars MORE in spending than the primarily Democratic-led Congress let him pass. In other words, Congress RESTRAINED the Gipper from spending even more than he did.

Clinton was not a progressive. Ever heard of triangulation or the southern leadership council? Clinton agreed to budget cuts , Welfare reform, and a capital gains tax cut in 1996- what you call trickle down. Clinton's economic policy was nearly the same as Reagans.

In 1993, Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Despite resistance at every turn, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office.

Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased. And I've always agreed with the GOP that the welfare system needed drastic alteration.

Clinton's economic model couldn't have been any further removed from Reagan's. Also, don't forget Reagan upped the marginal rate incrementally every year afer 1980.

the Obama debt is up 23% in two years, and most of that is from his Stimulus act and discretionary spending (things he signed in to law or chose to spend) In terms of ideology and policy Hoover= Roosevelt= Bush Sn = Bush Jr = Obama and none of em had a a praiseworthy economic track record.

The stimulus act failed because the GOP forced Obama to utilize slashing the marginal rates again as a 40% impetus for the program. Sure, it failed. However, the Auto Bailout was a phenomenal success (even Romney has acquiesced to this). Bush started the Wall Street bailouts and Obama continued them - sure, nobody liked it, but without it, we'd all be selling apples on street corners right now. And as I've shown before, only about 14% of Obama's deficit numbers can be traced to his own programs - the rest fall on Bush Jr.'s shoulders. And if the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire (as they were supposed to), we would have already chipped away $800 billion off the deficit.

Not as good as your usual stout retorts. You didn't even bother to look at the actual facts this time. FartFinder must be rubbing off on you.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Wrong actually Marginal rates on capital gains were lower in 1920's and before that. When rates were higher in the 1950's and 1960's the US had a global competitive advantage, (no Signapore, China, or Korea or Brazil to compete with.) We can't get away with those high rates today like we did then we have global competitors.

Yeah, things went so well in the 20's when Hoover employed the trickle-up theory and lowered the rates. We only suffered the worst economic depression in the history of the world. Think before you post.

Herbert Hoover believed in expansionist government. He reversed the Coolidge tax cuts and passed a massive tarriff wall and actually did advocate govt involvement in fixing the business cycle . these are things left democrats support.

Hoover's main legacy was lowering the very successful post-WWI higher marginal rates by 200% and leading the country, single-handedly, into a Great Depression.

wrong Roosevelt would have lost the 1942 election unemployment was so high. The nation rallied behind the president only because of WWII. Roosevelt's new deal didn't fix the depression any more than Obama's stimulus programme fixed our the current recession. The business cycle finally, after being distorted by Roosevelts intervention picked back up.

Wrong yet again. FDR brought the Hoover-caused unemployment rate down from a staggering 21.7% to 12.9% in 1941. No way in HELL he would have lost tht election.

Not as good as your usual stout retorts. You didn't even bother to look at the actual facts this time. FartFinder must be rubbing off on you.

I wonder whose not looking up facts. To start at the top. Herbert Hoover did NOT cut tax rates. (I'd be interested to see where you got your data regarding rates between 1918 and 1933?) He was not trickle down nor was he a fan of free markets . IN FACT he did the following: (all referencaable facts )

In 1932 Hoover raised rates from 25 to 63 percent- the revenue act of 1932
Herbert Hoover put up corporate taxes 15 perent
Herbert Hoover doubled the estate tax
Herbert hoover sought to raise revenue by implementing Smoot Hawley a high tariff which was nothing but a tax on the American consumer and hurt our foreign trade.
Herbert Hoover implemented the Check tax
Herbert hoover actually engaged in spending which was a precursor to the New Deal programs in factFDR accused Hoover of spending the country into a hole . FDR's running mate accused Hoover of leading the country into socialism

In fact you would have loved Hoover, he stood for everything which you support. He was our country's first whacked out leftie president . Christ Almighty, folks like you ought to be lobbying to have the idiots face chiseled into Mount Rushmore by now.

LOL This is only a third of your response Ive pointed out a few fundamental mistakes I'd continue, but its Friday, Miller Time , and I feel merciful. Maybe Ill send in Fact Finder to finish the job

[Seven Wishes2]

In fact you would have loved Hoover, he stood for everything which you support. He was our country's first whacked out leftie president . Christ Almighty, folks like you ought to be lobbying to have the idiots face chiseled into Mount Rushmore by now.

LOL This is only a third of your response Ive pointed out a few fundamental mistakes I'd continue, but its Friday, Miller Time , and I feel merciful. Maybe Ill send in Fact Finder to finish the job

"Fundamental mistakes." Really? That's your response?

Once marginal rates went back up (and BTW, he was pressured by a Democratic Congress to do so), the end of the Depression was in sight.

He was a tax-lowering spendthrift from Day 1. As I've already shown, it's Republicans who have the spending problems, and like a bratty child accused of stealing cookies before dinner, the party accuses the Democrats of doing just that when the raw, factual data shows just the opposite.

Hoover was a tried and true conservative. He's yours; you own him.

Oh, and way to avoid the other facts I posted. When the truth hurts, you neo-con / libertarian types just try to change the subject.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

In fact you would have loved Hoover, he stood for everything which you support. He was our country's first whacked out leftie president . Christ Almighty, folks like you ought to be lobbying to have the idiots face chiseled into Mount Rushmore by now.

LOL This is only a third of your response Ive pointed out a few fundamental mistakes I'd continue, but its Friday, Miller Time , and I feel merciful. Maybe Ill send in Fact Finder to finish the job

"Fundamental mistakes." Really? That's your response?

Once marginal rates went back up (and BTW, he was pressured by a Democratic Congress to do so), the end of the Depression was in sight.

He was a tax-lowering spendthrift from Day 1. As I've already shown, it's Republicans who have the spending problems, and like a bratty child accused of stealing cookies before dinner, the party accuses the Democrats of doing just that when the raw, factual data shows just the opposite.

Hoover was a tried and true conservative. He's yours; you own him.

Oh, and way to avoid the other facts I posted. When the truth hurts, you neo-con / libertarian types just try to change the subject.

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street. If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat.If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
-thats a direct quote from Herbert Hoover


Ok I made that up , it was the beatles , but if you can make shit up , I can throw in a fast one or two too . Hoover was pushing for tax increases as early as early 1930 so he could fund his housing reconstruction act (similar to todays housing bailouts) He pushed for the tariff increase in 1930 and no , the economy was not recovering in 1932 when the tax rises where put in place, in fact GDP in 1932vwas in adjusted terms 56 billion (down from 106 billion in 1929)

As for the rest of you post, I could challenge a few of your assertions, and throw in a discussion of the damage that the Democrat Johnson did in the areas of debt and economic misery. but actually in short I've disliked and have issues with the economic approach every president, red or blue in the 20th centrury with the exception of Taft and Coolidge. I'm not a conservative or a republican , I'm a Jeffersonian type libertarian.

By the way libertarians are not neo conservatives or conservatives . they bear no similarity whatsoever

Conservatives - believe in somewhat smaller government than the left, but are happy to try to legislate morality, grow the size of the state through wars and defense spending.

Libertarians (real ones) - believe the very existence state is always the problem, and reject every form of co-ercing individuals- economic or social, Dont legislate morality (drugs, porn, consenting sexual activity all should be allowed ) and oppose war (as that's an activity of the state) big defense spending and neo-conservative interventionism in foreign affairs

[Seven Wishes2]

Gee, Matt..thanks for the civics lesson.

I damn well know the "difference" between libertarians and neo conservatives or conservatives. On this board, those distinctions are blurry at best. Wolves in sheep's clothes, if you will.

And all economists agree there is a 3-5 year lag between the implementation of an economic policy and its effect, except for emergency measures and the like. So the insistence of the left to raise the marginal rates absolutely was a contributing factor.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08 ... ick-graph/

Super Economy reported, via Free Republic:

for the first time in history U.S debt was downgraded. The Left still denies that President Obama has a lot of responsibility for this situation, instead laying blame on Republican refusal to raise taxes on the rich.

As I have written previously, it is dishonest to give voters the impression that tax increases on the rich is a solution to the deficit. In the latest projection by the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is estimated at 13 trillion dollars. By contrast, Obama’s various tax increases on the rich will only bring in 1 trillion in the same period.

The 13 trillion dollar deficit which the President helped create and long terms entitlement deficits are the main reason why S&P downgraded U.S debt, not the 1 trillion in tax increases which Republicans prevented…

…Let me illustrate how much of a departure from history the Obama Presidency represents in terms of spending. I will graph non-defense federal spending as a share of GDP since 1975.

Yeah, 7 all the Tea Party's fault. Mindless drone.

[Seven Wishes2]

Wrong again.

Killing the Bush tax cuts would save FOUR TRILLION over ten years. Eliminating corporate tax loopholes would save another FOUR TRILLION.

Simple math. Nice try.

[Gideon]

Slightly tangential in nature, but I feel inclined to ask as a political science student who is quite frankly miserable with the field: Does anyone here on either side of the party fence ever tire of the polarization?

Rudy Giuliani really impressed me a week or so back during a phone interview on Piers Morgan when he extended some kind (if not overtly generous) words to Obama even though he reiterated how much he disagreed with much of Obama's policies and stances.

[hoagiepete]

Had the good fortune of driving for 10 hours yesterday with Sirius. Listened to the pundants on CNN and Fox. It is amazing how the talking points are orchestrated (by both sides).

I loved how every D guest said Tea Party and Terrorist in the same breath. Different people, different channel, same comments. I'm sure the R's do the same, but associating Tea Party with terrorists is fuckin rediculous.

Another note, Clinton did have a good run, but if GW had the internet boom during his term, we'd be saying the same thing about him as they are saying about Clinton. Clinton was one lucky sob. He's no dummy, but very fortunate.

[Saint John]

Killing the Bush tax cuts would save FOUR TRILLION over ten years.

"Save"? That's stealing, plain and simple. Rummaging through the homes of middle class Americans and stealing their televisions, smart phones and computers would probably also save several trillion. Shall we do that, instead? Listen, they weren't "tax cuts," either. They were simply lowered to a lesser amount of unfairness. Again, the system needs to be blind and without prejudice, and tax each dollar the same. What the fuck someone makes is no one's fucking business.

Eliminating corporate tax loopholes would save another FOUR TRILLION.

Let's roll. Sounds good.

[Seven Wishes2]

Good luck with THAT one in D.C.

S&P has already come out and stated the $4 trillion package Boner and Gumby agreed to (which was shot down by th Tea Bag caucus) would have, if put into law, absolutely have prevented a ratings downgrade.

Just wait and see how each party uses this instead of doing the right thing and really fixing this mess.

[Seven Wishes2]

Had the good fortune of driving for 10 hours yesterday with Sirius. Listened to the pundants on CNN and Fox. It is amazing how the talking points are orchestrated (by both sides).

I loved how every D guest said Tea Party and Terrorist in the same breath. Different people, different channel, same comments. I'm sure the R's do the same, but associating Tea Party with terrorists is fuckin rediculous.

Another note, Clinton did have a good run, but if GW had the internet boom during his term, we'd be saying the same thing about him as they are saying about Clinton. Clinton was one lucky sob. He's no dummy, but very fortunate.

Wrong on every level. I was listening to CNN most of the day, too, and heard NO such association. Nice try.

And Clinton's fiscal policy was much more solid than Obama's or Bush's.

[donnaplease]

Slightly tangential in nature, but I feel inclined to ask as a political science student who is quite frankly miserable with the field: Does anyone here on either side of the party fence ever tire of the polarization?

YES!!!!!

It disgusts and embarrasses me as an American citizen.

[Seven Wishes2]

Simple solution. Get rid of the Tea Party, the ACLU, trial attorneys, and Faux, and you're off to a great start.

[donnaplease]

Simple solution. Get rid of the Tea Party, the ACLU, trial attorneys, and Faux, and you're off to a great start.

MSNBC, ACORN (et al), judges who legislate from the bench, atheists who won't STFU, etc...

[donnaplease]

Truthfully, Daniel, the people I blame the most are the press. There is no such thing as honest journalism anymore. I watch and listen to it from all sides, and I haven't found anyone who can report without slant. And then there are those like Chris Matthews, Rush, Olbermann, etc who try to convince us that they are not biased, but simply telling us what we need to know. It got so bad last week that Alex Bennett took several minutes giving the history of the words cun't and fuc'k because he was so disgusted with the financial negotiations. (They date back to medieval times, in case anyone cares... ).

[hoagiepete]

Had the good fortune of driving for 10 hours yesterday with Sirius. Listened to the pundants on CNN and Fox. It is amazing how the talking points are orchestrated (by both sides).

I loved how every D guest said Tea Party and Terrorist in the same breath. Different people, different channel, same comments. I'm sure the R's do the same, but associating Tea Party with terrorists is fuckin rediculous.

Another note, Clinton did have a good run, but if GW had the internet boom during his term, we'd be saying the same thing about him as they are saying about Clinton. Clinton was one lucky sob. He's no dummy, but very fortunate.

Wrong on every level. I was listening to CNN most of the day, too, and heard NO such association. Nice try.

And Clinton's fiscal policy was much more solid than Obama's or Bush's.

Wrong on every level? What the fuck are you talking about? You must be smellin too many sweaty crotches of those you're training. Must be fermenting and making you drunk.

Wrong that both sides have talking points drilled into the people appearing on the talking head shows? Wrong that the D appointments are dropping the "terrorist" tag on tea partiers every chance they get? Why would I make that shit up? I heard it on several shows on Sunday.

Clinton did an admirable job...but he also had a hell of a lot of luck on his side. All I'm sayin.

[RedWingFan]

Truthfully, Daniel, the people I blame the most are the press. There is no such thing as honest journalism anymore. I watch and listen to it from all sides, and I haven't found anyone who can report without slant. And then there are those like Chris Matthews, Rush, Olbermann, etc who try to convince us that they are not biased, but simply telling us what we need to know. It got so bad last week that Alex Bennett took several minutes giving the history of the words cun't and fuc'k because he was so disgusted with the financial negotiations. (They date back to medieval times, in case anyone cares... ).

You must not listen to Rush. He's never tried to pretend he's "not biased". He's conservative and talks about why conservatism is the way to go.

[Seven Wishes2]

That's true. Rush doesn't hold any punches.

[AR]

Obama as a white guy.

[jaxmanjoe]

Obama as a white guy.

So many people on this thread as a non-racist...oh wait...can't be done...

[AR]

Obama as a white guy.

So many people on this thread as a non-racist...oh wait...can't be done...

Why is that racist? I'd like to see what I'd look like as a black dude. Lighten up Francis.

[Saint John]

Why is that racist?

No worries, Ed. It wasn't racist at all. People need to look up the definition of that word.

I'd like to see what I'd look like as a black dude.

Here you go. I think the resemblance is uncanny!

[AR]

Why is that racist?

No worries, Ed. It wasn't racist at all. People need to look up the definition of that word.

I'd like to see what I'd look like as a black dude.

Here you go. I think the resemblance is uncanny!

I can debunk that myth Dan. Here I am in the same picture with him.

[Michigan Girl]

I'm crying ...cryyyyyyyyyyiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg!!

[Saint John]

Why is that racist?

No worries, Ed. It wasn't racist at all. People need to look up the definition of that word.

I'd like to see what I'd look like as a black dude.

Here you go. I think the resemblance is uncanny!

I can debunk that myth Dan. Here I am in the same picture with him.

Holy shit, that's great! Well played, sir.

[RedWingFan]

Why is that racist?

No worries, Ed. It wasn't racist at all. People need to look up the definition of that word.

I'd like to see what I'd look like as a black dude.

Here you go. I think the resemblance is uncanny!

I can debunk that myth Dan. Here I am in the same picture with him.

Holy shit, that's great! Well played, sir.

"Spell red"

[AR]

Rambo vs. Erkel?

Their guy… Vladimir Putin (Prime Minister of Russia)



Our guy… Barack Obama (President of the United States)