President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[iceberg]

Well, it just comes down to whether or not the GOP can field a viable candidate outside of Romney (unlikely) and whether people believe we're better off than we would have been under Republican leadership that saw the unemployment rate more than double and brought us from a surplus to a deficit.

I'm not sure we'd be much better off right now. We need to do things far more drastic than either party is willing to consider, due to the fact that most of them are in it for their own fame and fortune.

we don't need one party over the other at this point. it's the same bag of shit either way.

we just need a DC Enema and get the shit out of there and refocus what the jobs were meant to be.

[slucero]

Except Bill Clinton never had a surplus....

from here: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:



So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:



Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

[Seven Wishes2]

Well, it just comes down to whether or not the GOP can field a viable candidate outside of Romney (unlikely) and whether people believe we're better off than we would have been under Republican leadership that saw the unemployment rate more than double and brought us from a surplus to a deficit.

I'm not sure we'd be much better off right now. We need to do things far more drastic than either party is willing to consider, due to the fact that most of them are in it for their own fame and fortune.

Sad, isn't it? My cynicism has never been as amplified as it presently is. I honestly think we'd been in good hands with Romney as President, provided he had a moderate VP running mate.

On the other hand, I've heard Tsahakis-Dukakis mentioned for the Dems in 2016.

[slucero]

I don't think its gonna matter....

We're gonna get some sort of austerity forced on us... I'm positive we'll see tax increases regardless which party is in the White House. One way or the other major headway has to be made on the deficit and servicing the debt interest by 2015.

The national debt is another problem altogether.

[conversationpc]

We're gonna get some sort of austerity forced on us... I'm positive we'll see tax increases regardless which party is in the White House. One way or the other major headway has to be made on the deficit and servicing the debt interest by 2015.

Unfortunately, higher taxes on everyone is only going to mean a slower economy, which isn't going to help in the end.

[Seven Wishes2]

Well, the good news is large, multi-generational families are getting to spend a LOT more quality time together these days.

[RedWingFan]

Well, the good news is large, multi-generational families are getting to spend a LOT more quality time together these days.

Yup. That's one more "change you can believe in".

[parfait]

We're gonna get some sort of austerity forced on us... I'm positive we'll see tax increases regardless which party is in the White House. One way or the other major headway has to be made on the deficit and servicing the debt interest by 2015.

Unfortunately, higher taxes on everyone is only going to mean a slower economy, which isn't going to help in the end.

That's wrong. Reducing top marginal rates for example leads to a slower growth and vice versa. Countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany all have higher taxation than the US but also far healthier economies. High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth. This is all well documented.

[conversationpc]

We're gonna get some sort of austerity forced on us... I'm positive we'll see tax increases regardless which party is in the White House. One way or the other major headway has to be made on the deficit and servicing the debt interest by 2015.

Unfortunately, higher taxes on everyone is only going to mean a slower economy, which isn't going to help in the end.

That's wrong. Reducing top marginal rates for example leads to a slower growth and vice versa. Countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany all have higher taxation than the US but also far healthier economies. High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth. This is all well documented.

Nope, not well documented at all. Reagan drastically reduced top marginal rates after becoming President here (from something on the order of 70+% down to around 40%) and the economy took off. I don't know about you but when the government takes more of my money, it makes my budget tighter and I can't spend as much. If people can't spend and/or save as much, the economy suffers, period.

[parfait]

We're gonna get some sort of austerity forced on us... I'm positive we'll see tax increases regardless which party is in the White House. One way or the other major headway has to be made on the deficit and servicing the debt interest by 2015.

Unfortunately, higher taxes on everyone is only going to mean a slower economy, which isn't going to help in the end.

That's wrong. Reducing top marginal rates for example leads to a slower growth and vice versa. Countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany all have higher taxation than the US but also far healthier economies. High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth. This is all well documented.

Nope, not well documented at all. Reagan drastically reduced top marginal rates after becoming President here (from something on the order of 70+% down to around 40%) and the economy took off. I don't know about you but when the government takes more of my money, it makes my budget tighter and I can't spend as much. If people can't spend and/or save as much, the economy suffers, period.

You can't consider top marginal rates in a vacuum, because average effective tax rates, which include cap gains and dividend taxes, are a better measure of tax burden. And again; look at Europe. Higher taxation and far healthier economies (with exceptions of course). Denmark and Sweden has the worlds highest tax revenues (around 50% of GDP) and their economy is in a much better state than the US'. Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth. Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940, Bush senior in 1991 and Clinton in 1993.

It's true that the individual will get a somewhat tighter personal economy though. But do the US have any other option at this point? I don't think so.

[conversationpc]

It's true that the individual will get a somewhat tighter personal economy though. But do the US have any other option at this point? I don't think so.

Drastic spending cuts, including entitlements. Let people decide what to do with their own money rather than stealing it from them in large quantities.

[iceberg]

We're gonna get some sort of austerity forced on us... I'm positive we'll see tax increases regardless which party is in the White House. One way or the other major headway has to be made on the deficit and servicing the debt interest by 2015.

Unfortunately, higher taxes on everyone is only going to mean a slower economy, which isn't going to help in the end.

That's wrong. Reducing top marginal rates for example leads to a slower growth and vice versa. Countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany all have higher taxation than the US but also far healthier economies. High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth. This is all well documented.

Nope, not well documented at all. Reagan drastically reduced top marginal rates after becoming President here (from something on the order of 70+% down to around 40%) and the economy took off. I don't know about you but when the government takes more of my money, it makes my budget tighter and I can't spend as much. If people can't spend and/or save as much, the economy suffers, period.

You can't consider top marginal rates in a vacuum, because average effective tax rates, which include cap gains and dividend taxes, are a better measure of tax burden. And again; look at Europe. Higher taxation and far healthier economies (with exceptions of course). Denmark and Sweden has the worlds highest tax revenues (around 50% of GDP) and their economy is in a much better state than the US'. Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth. Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940, Bush senior in 1991 and Clinton in 1993.

It's true that the individual will get a somewhat tighter personal economy though. But do the US have any other option at this point? I don't think so.

which part of europe? they seem to be having a lot of difficulties also.

[parfait]

It's true that the individual will get a somewhat tighter personal economy though. But do the US have any other option at this point? I don't think so.

Drastic spending cuts, including entitlements. Let people decide what to do with their own money rather than stealing it from them in large quantities.

Talk about evading. I was discussing the fact that higher taxes will lead to economic growth. Whether you don't want your government to "steal" from you, is a different matter altogether.

[SF-Dano]

We're gonna get some sort of austerity forced on us... I'm positive we'll see tax increases regardless which party is in the White House. One way or the other major headway has to be made on the deficit and servicing the debt interest by 2015.

Unfortunately, higher taxes on everyone is only going to mean a slower economy, which isn't going to help in the end.

That's wrong. Reducing top marginal rates for example leads to a slower growth and vice versa. Countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany all have higher taxation than the US but also far healthier economies. High taxes create an incentive to reinvest profits into long-term growth. This is all well documented.

Nope, not well documented at all. Reagan drastically reduced top marginal rates after becoming President here (from something on the order of 70+% down to around 40%) and the economy took off. I don't know about you but when the government takes more of my money, it makes my budget tighter and I can't spend as much. If people can't spend and/or save as much, the economy suffers, period.

You can't consider top marginal rates in a vacuum, because average effective tax rates, which include cap gains and dividend taxes, are a better measure of tax burden. And again; look at Europe. Higher taxation and far healthier economies (with exceptions of course). Denmark and Sweden has the worlds highest tax revenues (around 50% of GDP) and their economy is in a much better state than the US'. Tax rate increases are followed by real economic growth. Hoover in 1932, Roosevelt in 1936 and 1940, Bush senior in 1991 and Clinton in 1993.

It's true that the individual will get a somewhat tighter personal economy though. But do the US have any other option at this point? I don't think so.

which part of europe? they seem to be having a lot of difficulties also.

Since Denmark and Sweden are doing so well by your description Parf, maybe they should take over sending millions/billions of dollars in economic aid to foriegn countries. U.S.A. can then keep that money for necessities here. That would help us.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Well, the good news is large, multi-generational families are getting to spend a LOT more quality time together these days.

and in some rural US states, those families know each other very very well

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Since Denmark and Sweden are doing so well by your description Parf, maybe they should take over sending millions/billions of dollars in economic aid to foriegn countries. U.S.A. can then keep that money for necessities here. That would help us.

They aren't. They have some of the same issues which every other economy that has tried to create a utopia of democratic socialism- for example the Swedish health service which has undergone round after round of reform back and forth since 1990 and faces similar strains as the UK, ect. The problem in Europe is that there is not real debate abou the role of govt. The media , schoold and politicians all take a center left position (even most right of center parties) and tell the people what to think . Any one who disagrees is considered and immmoral opponent of social justice. Most cant even fathom that there is another explanation or another appraoch. And of course it suits them just to agree- after all there is a govt payout for them in one form or another .

[iceberg]

It's true that the individual will get a somewhat tighter personal economy though. But do the US have any other option at this point? I don't think so.

Drastic spending cuts, including entitlements. Let people decide what to do with their own money rather than stealing it from them in large quantities.

Talk about evading. I was discussing the fact that higher taxes will lead to economic growth. Whether you don't want your government to "steal" from you, is a different matter altogether.

and we disagreed. imagine that.

[parfait]

Since Denmark and Sweden are doing so well by your description Parf, maybe they should take over sending millions/billions of dollars in economic aid to foriegn countries. U.S.A. can then keep that money for necessities here. That would help us.

They aren't. They have some of the same issues which every other economy that has tried to create a utopia of democratic socialism- for example the Swedish health service which has undergone round after round of reform back and forth since 1990 and faces similar strains as the UK, ect. The problem in Europe is that there is not real debate abou the role of govt. The media , schoold and politicians all take a center left position (even most right of center parties) and tell the people what to think . Any one who disagrees is considered and immmoral opponent of social justice. Most cant even fathom that there is another explanation or another appraoch. And of course it suits them just to agree- after all there is a govt payout for them in one form or another .

Sweden is ranked as the 4th best place to live in the world, compared to the US' 14th place. Norway is ranked 16th in homicides per 100 000 people - the US is ranked 76th. Sweden is ranked 7th in infrastructure - the US is ranked 23rd.

It's simply not as one sides as you present it. Your last point about waiting for a government payout is simply nonsense.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... fghanistan
Wow. Please remember this come election time in 2012 people. All those years as a community organizer makes him more qualified than Generals with actual experience. Disgusting!

Barack Obama is set to reject the advice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, in time for the US presidential election.

The move comes despite warnings from his military commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013.

The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives.

"This is not something we feel entirely comfortable with," a Whitehall official told the Guardian.

Obama's nationally televised address, the sixth he has given since becoming president, is intended to mark the beginning of the end of American military deployment in Afghanistan, from a present high of almost 100,000 troops.

The White House confirmed that the withdrawal will be "significant".

Obama's decision is aimed at placating an American public tired of a 10-year war that has cost 1,522 US lives. The killing of Osama bin Laden added impetus to calls to pull out.

[conversationpc]

Sweden is ranked as the 4th best place to live in the world, compared to the US' 14th place. Norway is ranked 16th in homicides per 100 000 people - the US is ranked 76th. Sweden is ranked 7th in infrastructure - the US is ranked 23rd.

It's simply not as one sides as you present it. Your last point about waiting for a government payout is simply nonsense.

Who's doing these rankings and what are the criteria? If my suspicion is correct, it's probably along the same lines as the people who claim the infant mortality rate is higher in the US than in most other industrialized nations. Of course, it's false. The reason for that is because our reporting guidelines are stricter than most other nations and, therefore more deaths are counted here that wouldn't be counted in most other industrialized countries. That's just one example.

[parfait]

Sweden is ranked as the 4th best place to live in the world, compared to the US' 14th place. Norway is ranked 16th in homicides per 100 000 people - the US is ranked 76th. Sweden is ranked 7th in infrastructure - the US is ranked 23rd.

It's simply not as one sides as you present it. Your last point about waiting for a government payout is simply nonsense.

Who's doing these rankings and what are the criteria? If my suspicion is correct, it's probably along the same lines as the people who claim the infant mortality rate is higher in the US than in most other industrialized nations. Of course, it's false. The reason for that is because our reporting guidelines are stricter than most other nations and, therefore more deaths are counted here that wouldn't be counted in most other industrialized countries. That's just one example.

These rankings are done by the World Health Organization. WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. A large number of statistical studies are done by the CIA (thus a work by the government). The CIA World Factbook ranked US 46th in infant mortality.

It should be noted however, that the US is on the forefront in medical technology, innovation and personnel. But the wealth distribution is more evenly spread in other western compared to the US. You're way fatter (obesity increases the risk of birth complications).

[RedWingFan]

All Hail Emperor Obama!!!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/06 ... ive-order/

[KenTheDude]

My mom is German and regularly talks to her bothers & sister that still live in Germany. They've been telling her that the German government is subsidizing Russian & Turkish people that come to Germany by giving them money from the equivilent of social security when they never even paid into it! There are some parts of Germany that have Russian & Turkish neighborhoods full of people that received their house for little or no out-of-pocket expenses! This is crippling the German government & Parfait is full of SHIT!

[conversationpc]

My mom is German and regularly talks to her bothers & sister that still live in Germany. They've been telling her that the German government is subsidizing Russian & Turkish people that come to Germany by giving them money from the equivilent of social security when they never even paid into it! There are some parts of Germany that have Russian & Turkish neighborhoods full of people that received their house for little or no out-of-pocket expenses! This is crippling the German government & Parfait is full of SHIT!

Most of this is new info, except the part in bold, which we already knew.

[RedWingFan]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-casu ... -increased

Under Obama, U.S. Casualty Rate in Afghanistan Increased 5-Fold
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) - The average monthly casualty rate for U.S. military forces serving in Afghanistan has increased 5-fold since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.

1,540 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Oct. 7,2001, when U.S. forces began action in that country to oust the Taliban regime that had been harboring al Qaeda and to track down and capture or kill al Qaeda terrorists.

During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the inauguration of President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for 87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties—a rate of 6.5 deaths per month.

During the Obama presidency, through today, U.S. troops have been present in Afghanistan for 29.1 months and have suffered 970 casualties—a rate of 33.3 deaths per month.

Nice job Bamster.... bout time for another round of golf isn't it?

[RedWingFan]

If that were so, O wouldn't even have brought Rush up in the convo. But he did......

Dude, I applaud him for striking back. Rush is going to get find himself looking for a job soon. Mark my words.

Hey Rick. Might as well order some tea, kick back and relax while you're waiting!!!
http://www.twoifbytea.com/

[RedWingFan]

Looking back in this thread. I think someone owes Barb an apology, because she was right.

7, get off your soap box and just acknowledge that your view is not the only one. My opinion of Obama stands. I couldn't care less if you think I'm qualified to make an opinion or not. He is abysmal and after four years, I'm guessing most of this country (if we survive) will be screaming for CHANGE once again. Why do you think his "strongly disapprove" polll numbers have gone from 14% to 31% in just 60 days?

This is why I don't bother posting much on political topics anymore. It's a waste of time. You and TNC are still so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you can't see the disaster right in front of you that is sitting in the White House right now!

Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover.

We are hardly "blinded by hatred". Your blind adherence to your dwindling company's out-of-step marching orders shows just how easily you have been fooled and manipulated. Already, Obama has taken on more critical issues than W. did during his entire Administration.

I'm beginning to suffer from compassion fatigue...for instance, Barb, your qualifier that Obama is "abysmal" cannot be based in actual fact, since there will be no way of knowing how his policies impact the economy, the nation, and the world until enough time passes to give us a sense of perspective. Keep in mind that his policies are similar to those the rest of the world is advocating - tried and tested, and proven, methods for stopping recessions.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g04aCp3ej-I

[slucero]

Regardless of ones political persuasion, this is fucking scary....

[Seven Wishes2]

It sure is.

So, here's my beef...with Obama.

He acquiesced to the GOP on the individual mandate (which I also oppose) and then let them turn it around and use it as the primary tool for its potential appeal. He crumbled and gave up on the single payor option, which almost everyone favors. The Republicans set him up to support some of their most dated ideas and then made him look the fool.

The ridiculous and factually disproven trickle-up theory (that lowering taxes on the wealthy create jobs)? Obama allowed the Bush-era tax cuts to continue for another two years, in spite of the fact that (as I have proven before) those cuts are responsible for more than HALF the current deficit. And almost 40% of it would be eliminated by simply reverting the tax code to Clinton-era levels which, I'm pretty sure history has proven, was a wildly successful time for Americans. I mean, the tax cuts have been in the system for eight years now. The result? Unemployment has DOUBLED from 4.2 (when Bush took office) to 8.2% (where it was when Obama took office) and now sits at 9.0%. IT DOES NOT FUCKING WORK. I challenge ANYONE to find ANY actual FACTUAL data supporting the notion that giving the rich tax breaks creates jobs. IT DOES NOT. It never has. And while the United States technically has one of the world's highest corporate tax "rates," the actual percentage of revenues paid by those same corporations is among the LOWEST in the world.

And you gotta love Obama's stance on Iraq and Afghanistan. Even with the 33,000 troop reduction, the levels will still be almost DOUBLE what they were when he assumed the Presidency. Certainly, the surge worked, and it helped kill Bin Laden, but he has completely reneged on that promise as well. Although I do love the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't double-standard, hypocritical position put forth by the GOP - half the Republicans in office or running for 2012 want us to become completely isolationist and withdraw completely from both countries, and the other half thinks we should stand pat and keep troop levels where they are. Never mind that the wars are responsible for another 25% of the budget fiasco right now...or that withdrawing completely and ushering in that "obscene, soak-the-rich" Clinton-era, 39% tax rate on the rich (as opposed to the 36% it is right now) combined would solve 75% of the deficit.