President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Except for those who can afford to buy their expensive goods out of the country. Why not just buy that Mercedes in Canada and drive it back to the US if you can save so much on taxes? In fact, what is to stop any smart person from buying everything the can thru the Internet and having it shipped to the US, tax free? And, it will affect the states income which comes so much from sales taxes. If you take a 8% state tax and then add another 8% federal tax, the middle income is going to be screwed.

The federal sales tax is an idea that only a fool of a politician would support.

And people trying to skirt taxes by buying out of country will just cause government to get bigger to police all that activity. Sales tax idea fails on the drawing board.

That happens already but would actually be less likely with something like the fair tax since, overall, prices would be more likely to remain about where they would be now considering all other federal taxes would have to go away to institute the fair tax in the first place.

Agree currently corporations and business pay their income taxes by building it into their prices. Put a national sales tax into the equation and get rid of the sales tax, and businesses wont do that - you will see prices actually get a little bit lower.

[Seven Wishes2]

After reading at length the past few weeks about Obama's Race to the Top initiative, I can honestly say it's (somehow) and even bigger pile of crap than the Every Child Left Behind Act. He seems to be thoroughly committed to mediocrity.

[Melissa]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Lower income people will buy even less goods and services that way. Less money going into the economy. I don't think that will work. I'm in favor of flat tax %.

No they won't. Not majority. I take care of kids from parents who claim they are "low income", yet they spend PLENTY. They would keep spending, everyone would. Educate yourself on the Fair Tax before regurgitating that little common scare tactic used by Fair Tax opposers.

[steveo777]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Lower income people will buy even less goods and services that way. Less money going into the economy. I don't think that will work. I'm in favor of flat tax %.

No they won't. Not majority. I take care of kids from parents who claim they are "low income", yet they spend PLENTY. They would keep spending, everyone would. Educate yourself on the Fair Tax before regurgitating that little common scare tactic used by Fair Tax opposers.

There ya have it. I'm flat tax pro.

[Melissa]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Lower income people will buy even less goods and services that way. Less money going into the economy. I don't think that will work. I'm in favor of flat tax %.

No they won't. Not majority. I take care of kids from parents who claim they are "low income", yet they spend PLENTY. They would keep spending, everyone would. Educate yourself on the Fair Tax before regurgitating that little common scare tactic used by Fair Tax opposers.

There ya have it. I'm flat dumb.

Whatever you say

[conversationpc]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Lower income people will buy even less goods and services that way. Less money going into the economy. I don't think that will work. I'm in favor of flat tax %.

No they won't. Not majority. I take care of kids from parents who claim they are "low income", yet they spend PLENTY. They would keep spending, everyone would. Educate yourself on the Fair Tax before regurgitating that little common scare tactic used by Fair Tax opposers.

The lower income folks are more likely to spend MORE money with a fair tax because of lower or stable prices plus the monthly prebate.

[Melissa]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Lower income people will buy even less goods and services that way. Less money going into the economy. I don't think that will work. I'm in favor of flat tax %.

No they won't. Not majority. I take care of kids from parents who claim they are "low income", yet they spend PLENTY. They would keep spending, everyone would. Educate yourself on the Fair Tax before regurgitating that little common scare tactic used by Fair Tax opposers.

The lower income folks are more likely to spend MORE money with a fair tax because of lower or stable prices plus the monthly prebate.

Exactly.

[slucero]

" Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "

~ George Orwell

[RedWingFan]

Let's take a break from discussing Obama's brilliant handling of everything including the economy to look back at that racist bigot George W Bush.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07 ... ge-w-bush/

South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir wore his black hat given to him by former President George W. Bush as he signed the interim Constitution.

South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir (C) walks during the Independence Day ceremony in Juba July 9, 2011. Tens of thousands of South Sudanese danced and cheered as their new country formally declared its independence on Saturday, a hard-won separation from the north that also plunged the fractured region into a new period of uncertainty. (REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic)

South Sudan celebrated its independence today thanks to US president George W. Bush.
The New York Times reported, via Ace of Spades:


Christian groups had been championing the southern Sudanese since the 19th century. And their efforts paid off in 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president of the United States. He elevated Sudan to the top of his foreign policy agenda, and in 2005, the American government pushed the southern rebels and the central government — both war weary and locked in a military stalemate — to sign a comprehensive peace agreement that guaranteed the southerners the right to secede.

On Saturday, one man held up a sign that said “Thank You George Bush.”

The American-backed treaty set the stage for a referendum this January in which southerners voted by 98.8 percent for independence.

At 1:20 p.m. on Saturday, the southerners officially proclaimed their freedom…

…South Sudan’s president, Salva Kiir, wearing his signature black cowboy hat given to him by Mr. Bush, signed the interim Constitution. Then the speeches began.

George W. Bush liberated more than 50,000,000 people during his time in office. Today the people of South Sudan were liberated thanks to his efforts.

[Seven Wishes2]

Obama just GUARANTEED he won't get re-elected in 2011, and deservedly so. More than four in five Americans want the Bush tax cuts on the rich rolled back and no cuts made to Medicare or Medicaid, and this spineless douchebag comes out with a proposal including $4 billion in cuts (much of that to vital infrastructure programs that create jobs as opposed to military), a status quo for the Mega Corporations, and only $800 million in increased tax revenues, when it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lowering taxes on the rich does NOT create jobs.

I'm either going to sit out the 2012 election (likely), vote for Romney (less likely), or write in a candidate of my own choosing such as Mark Fidrych or Bill Lee.

[conversationpc]

I'm either going to sit out the 2012 election (likely), vote for Romney (less likely), or write in a candidate of my own choosing such as Mark Fidrych or Bill Lee.

[S2M]

Obama just GUARANTEED he won't get re-elected in 2011, and deservedly so. More than four in five Americans want the Bush tax cuts on the rich rolled back and no cuts made to Medicare or Medicaid, and this spineless douchebag comes out with a proposal including $4 billion in cuts (much of that to vital infrastructure programs that create jobs as opposed to military), a status quo for the Mega Corporations, and only $800 million in increased tax revenues, when it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lowering taxes on the rich does NOT create jobs.

I'm either going to sit out the 2012 election (likely), vote for Romney (less likely), or write in a candidate of my own choosing such as Mark Fidrych or Bill Lee.

A BIRD and a SPACEMAN. Add SOUP, and I think you might be on to something...lol.

[slucero]

not that I'm any fan of Obama... but blaming any President for recessions/depressions is like blaming the football commissioner because your favorite baseball team didn't make the playoffs..


Fiscal policy from the White House has very little to do with the nations economic health....

Fiscal policy from the Federal Reserve however, in concert with inane idiotic legislation (over-regulation, de-regulation, special interest legislation) from Congress, has EVERYTHING to do with the nations economic health....


Some interesting things to ponder....

• Not one penny of US debt has been repaid for 51 years: the last time US government funded debt actually decreased on a year-over-year basis was 1960
  
• 97% of today's funded debt has been accumulated since August 1971 - the end of the Bretton Woods era, and the terminal delinking of all fiat currencies from any and all hard assets, ushered in the era of modern-day hyper-debt insolvency
  
• The current administration projects a 2.5% Fed Funds rate in budget calculations through 2020.
  The average Fed Funds rate since 1980?: 5.7%;
  Since 2008?: 0.00%,
  If average 5.7% rate was used, projected US deficit would increase by another $4.9 trillion by 2020
  
• The current administration projects 4.2% growth rate over next 3 years.
  If a normal growth rate of 2.5% is used, deficits would increase by another $4 trillion by 2020
  
• The US government borrows 40-50 cents for every dollar it spends. A balanced budget would mean cutting government spending in half.
  
• Implementing a balanced budget would not reduce current debt outstanding. It would merely stop it from growing.
  
• Over the past three fiscal years US debt grew by over $1.5 trillion per year: this is more than three times the record annual debt increase in any previous year in US history
  
• The recently discussed cut in deficit reduction targets from $4 trillion to $2 trillion over the next decade, in exchange for a $2.4 trillion debt ceiling hike, which will last the Treasury until the next presidential election.
  Said otherwise, the Treasury needs to fund a $2.4 trillion hold over the next 15 months.
  Over a decade this comes to $20 trillion: ten times more than the proposed deficit reduction.
  

.. and if anyone thinks that job creation leading to recovery is just around the corner... this chart is sobering to say the least...

This shows the break even number that has be attained to restore (not surpass) the jobs that the US economy had back in December 2007 as this Depression (its not a recession, anybody who believes that is nuts) started. It also accounts for the natural increase of 90,000 people/month in the labor force.

250,000 jobs per month. For 65 MONTHS.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Obama just GUARANTEED he won't get re-elected in 2011, and deservedly so. More than four in five Americans want the Bush tax cuts on the rich rolled back and no cuts made to Medicare or Medicaid, and this spineless douchebag comes out with a proposal including $4 billion in cuts (much of that to vital infrastructure programs that create jobs as opposed to military), a status quo for the Mega Corporations, and only $800 million in increased tax revenues, when it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that lowering taxes on the rich does NOT create jobs.

I'm either going to sit out the 2012 election (likely), vote for Romney (less likely), or write in a candidate of my own choosing such as Mark Fidrych or Bill Lee.

A BIRD and a SPACEMAN. Add SOUP, and I think you might be on to something...lol.

Throw in a few whores and gamblers for secretary of defense , health and human services secretary, and treasury secretary, you a got whole damn cabinent too.

[Seven Wishes2]

Obama's trillion-dollar tax hike would hit low- and middle-income families...

Proposals under consideration include raising taxes on small business owners and potentially low- and middle-income families. You won't hear about that from Obama. Instead the president focuses on the very rich, and speaks euphemistically.

Again, with a paucity of facts and a lowest-common-denominator appeal.

[Saint John]

Gene Rayburn!

[slucero]

The scare tactics wont work this time...

The Obama administration is threatening to cut off Social Security benefits as well unless they get their “clean” debt limit increase without any spending control.

But that would only be by the choice of President Obama, because cutting off Social Security benefits in any way would not be necessary even without a debt limit increase. Social Security payroll taxes would again still continue to be paid in full, which the Social Security Administration estimates would total $564.7 billion for this year. Social Security benefit payments are estimated to cost $727.3 billion for the year, leaving a deficit of $162.6 billion to be covered if benefits are to be paid in full.

The federal government, however, doesn’t have to borrow from the general public, increasing the national debt, to cash out the Social Security trust fund bonds necessary to cover this shortfall. It can pay off the bonds out of other incoming tax revenue as well. With federal individual and corporate income tax revenue, and excise taxes, totaling $1,257.5 billion, even with $206.7 billion going to pay debt interest, that still leaves $1,050.8 billion, or over $1 trillion, more than enough to cash out $162.6 billion in Social Security trust fund bonds without any additional borrowing.

Ironic how there's unlimited money available for endless wars, but when it comes to Social Security, for American Citizens... we're all pawns on the political chessboard.

[Seven Wishes2]

Unbelievable. FF, Reid's statement was made in response to Republicans promising to privatize social security, and has NOTHING to do whatsoever with the current crisis.

So, even though it's factually clear the Bush tax cuts and, secondarily, his wars, are what casused 85% of the current deficit - and though seven years of tax cuts for the rich have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it does NOT stimulate the economy NOR create jobs...and 4 out of 5 people WANT the rich to be taxed at 39% as opposed to 36%...

...despite the fact that Boner himself voted NINETEEN times to raise the debt ceiling, which has been increased 72 times since Kennedy, and was increased SEVEN TIMES under Dumbya...

...you're still sticking to regurtitating the proverbial dog shit / spooge that is the cumulation of the Faux Inquisition's talking points...

...you woud rather drive America into the worst Depression in history, and take down the rest of the world, than increase the tax on the wealthiest Americans by THREE PERCENT and bankrupt social security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

Not only are you ignorant of fact and history, you're also an asshole.

[Memorex]

3 Issues.

Debt Ceiling - Raise it if need be.

Spending - Stop spending our money on wasteful shit, corruption, and lazy people & employees.

Taxes - Get number 2 in order and then let's see where we are at.

[Seven Wishes2]

Memorex, when I first glanced at your post I thought you'd written "Texans".

[RedWingFan]

..you woud rather drive America into the worst Depression in history, and take down the rest of the world, than increase the tax on the wealthiest Americans by THREE PERCENT and bankrupt social security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

You could confiscate every red cent from the rich and run the country for how long? A day, a week, maybe two? Then what would you do? We don't have a tax problem dipshit, we have a spending problem.

[Memorex]

Memorex, when I first glanced at your post I thought you'd written "Texans".

Texans too - their electricity rates are too high with all those people getting the electric chair.

[Seven Wishes2]

..you woud rather drive America into the worst Depression in history, and take down the rest of the world, than increase the tax on the wealthiest Americans by THREE PERCENT and bankrupt social security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

You could confiscate every red cent from the rich and run the country for how long? A day, a week, maybe two? Then what would you do? We don't have a tax problem dipshit, we have a spending problem.

Way to subterfuge the conversation again.

Simply raising the tax three percent would wipe out 40% of the current deficit problem. And since most government money is used to create jobs and support America's infrastructure - and since the GOP won't yield one cent on military spending - where exactly should these cuts take place? And what exactly is the Republican jobs program? How will they explain to their constituents the programs (job creators and social security) that would be slashed in order to mollify the tea party, which has about as much idea of how an economy works as Heidi Montag does plastic surgery restraint?

[conversationpc]

And since most government money is used to create jobs...

The government doesn't create jobs with our money unless you're talking about additional beurocracy. Government can allow small business to create jobs by lessening the tax burden on small businesses. That's real job creation.

[slucero]

And since most government money is used to create jobs...

The government doesn't create jobs with our money unless you're talking about additional beurocracy. Government can allow small business to create jobs by lessening the tax burden on small businesses. That's real job creation.

Them's some damn expensive jobs...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc120 ... 3-ARRA.pdf

The jobs created and saved by the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed on Feb. 17, 2009 cost at a minimum an average of $228,055 each, according to he Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

In a report released Wednesday—“Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from October Through December 2010”—the CBO said it now estimates the stimulus law cost a total of $821 billion, up from CBO’s original estimate that the stimulus would cost $787 billion.

In the same report, the CBO estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2010 there were somewhere between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people who were then employed who would not have been had the stimulus not been enacted. “CBO estimates,” says the report, “that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010: … Increased the number of people employed by between 1.3 million and 3.5 million.”

This estimate seeks to state the net impact the stimulus had on the number of people employed in the United States as a result of the stimulus, taking into account not only the new jobs believed to be created and the existing jobs believed to be killed by the stimulus, but also the existing jobs that were saved that otherwise would have been lost.

The CBO’s estimate that there were 1.3 million to 3.5 million people employed in the fourth quarter of 2010 who would not have been were it not for the stimulus represents a decline from the 1.4 million to 3.6 million people CBO estimated were employed as a result the stimulus during the third quarter of 2010. In fact, CBO now estimates that the apogee of the stimulus’s net job-creating-and-saving power occurred in the third quarter of 2010 when it believes somewhere between 1.4 million and 3.6 million people had jobs they would not have had except for the stimulus.

Thus, the $821 billion cost of the stimulus divided by the maximum of 3.6 million jobs the CBO believes the stimulus may have saved or created equals an average of $228,055 per job.

At the lower end of the CBO’s top job-creating-and-saving estimate for the stimulus—1.4 million jobs—the jobs would cost an average of $586,428 a piece.

[RedWingFan]

And since most government money is used to create jobs...

The government doesn't create jobs with our money unless you're talking about additional beurocracy. Government can allow small business to create jobs by lessening the tax burden on small businesses. That's real job creation.

Dave you have to remember who you're talking to. 7 Wishes has long ago swallowed Obama's "shovel ready jobs" load and it's been incubating and ready to emerge like an Alien Chestburster.

[Seven Wishes2]

Any economist will tell you policies take on average about two years to truly effect the economy. The unwavering support of the owners of money at the expense of the wage earners has always been the GOP's ideology. It has never, however, been as blatant as it is now. When the government has put inflationary pressure on the economy with fiscal policy, the Fed has enacted monetary policy to counteract this inflationary pressure. Now you see combination of those monetary and fiscal policies (especially monetizing the debt) to restore the facade of wealth protection for the average American.

The double inflationary effects of both monetary policy and fiscal policy to ensure the rich get richer is being offset (as it pertains to the middle class) by the huge unemployment numbers (one percent higher now than under Bush, under whom it doubled and who, incidentally, tripled the deficit). This unemployment, though certainly not admitted to by either the Fed or the right, is welcome for them at this time since it prevents inflation as they attempt to increase the wealth of the owners of money, even though it has been proven this has no effect on reducing the overall level of unemployment. Consequentially, you have what is in effect the emergence of neo-feudalism. Once you've systematically alienated and eventually phased out the middle class, you've Charles Taylored the economy to the point where inflation will run rampant and the economy collapses. How the GOP manages to avoid confronting this reality is beyond me.

[Seven Wishes2]

...and again, like a typical Republican, refused to address the issue or put forth an actual plan or even an idea...

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html.

Budget cuts will KILL growth...and, yes, there has been VERY SIGNIFICANT growth since Dumbya nearly single-handedly brought the world into a Great Depression.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011030901/more-300-economists-repudiate-right-wing-so-be-it-economics

Today the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for American Progress jointly released a statement signed by nearly 320 economists from around the country, including Nobel Prize winners Kenneth Arrow and Eric Maskin, former Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Alan Blinder, and former Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and Director of the National Economic Council Laura Tyson.
That comes a day after Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics released a report that estimated the House budget cuts would result in a loss of 700,000 jobs by 2012. That finding evoked a "so what?" from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor that was remarkably in line with the dismissive "so be it" comment that House Speaker John Boehner made earlier in February in response to concerns that budget cuts would result in job losses.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010052019/reagan-revolution-home-roost-america-drowning-debt

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=strategic_deficit_redux

Secret plan? When they said that cutting taxes increases revenue they knew it wouldn't -- they had a hidden agenda. They knew better than to actually believe that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue to fund the government. They said so. The resulting deficits were the agenda. The plan was to "cut their allowance" and "starve the beast" to create a debt crisis, then demand that government cut back the things it does to protect and empower We, the People.


What is the agenda behind this job-destruction agenda? If there is a secret agenda behind destroying so many American jobs -- and the ability to create new jobs that pay well -- then what is it? They can't be crazy enough to destroy the economy just to increase their 2012 electoral odds, can they? On the other hand, no one has ever finished the sentence, "Republicans aren't crazy enough to ..." without being proven wrong.

[Seven Wishes2]

Nice try again, LiePaster / LieFinder / FactBender:

As with all Rasmussen reports, the probem is with semantics, and the neo-cons at Rasmussen know EXACTLY what they're doing.

As part of Legislation to Raise Debt Ceiling Should Congress and President Raise Taxes?

Omitting, of course, the very statement which the CNN poll asked:

As part of Legislation to Raise Debt Ceiling, Should Congress and the President Raise Taxes on Americans making more than $1,000,000?

Of course, if you ask the average joe the Rasmussen question, they're going to oppose it. But more than 4 in 5 Americans approve raising taxes on Americans making more than one million a year, and better than 70% (including a majority of Republicans) approve raising taxes / rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those making more than $250,000 a year (which, I have already shown, will only affect less than 3% of ALL small business owners and which will actually stimulate job growth).

Nice try, but you get another "F Minus".

[Seven Wishes2]

Way to divert the conversation AGAIN and neglect the fact that weigh fully against you AGAIN. Typical Republican.

Here's a nice piece detailing exactly how Rasmussen does it:

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rasmussen-polls-lies-damn-lies-and-statisti