President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Seven Wishes2]

For fuck's sake. Let's review some basic facts and basic economic principles.

First of all, the least successful Obama program (the stimulus package) was 40% tax cuts, and a great deal of its failure hinged on that fact. The head economist at Moody's, himself a conservative, has stated there will be a second recession very soon unless the marginal rate on the wealthiest Americans is returned to its Clinton-era levels. A lot of the programs the Tea Baggers and Republicans are trying to starve are proven job-creators.

Now, I'm a Democrat, but I think (as Dan and I have touched upon) that Medicare and Social Security needs an overhaul, and Medicaid needs to be dismantled and reassembled. Many Republicans on this board have agreed with me that the best way to do that is create an unafilliated organization that will make these changes ASAP...sure, the outlay for such a program would be substantial, but I've provided links in months past showing that within 5 years, the projected savings would DOUBLE the cost of creating it.

So the left is, well, out to left when they assert that social programs are untouchable. I don't think defense spending should be cut much at all, since it's also a proven job-creator, but by simply getting our asses out of Iraq and Afghanistan and raising the marginal rate on the rich back to where it was when America was at its most prosperous and productive phase, we would cut out 60% of the deficit. Boom! Just like that! Add in the reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (relatively minor ones, mind you, that won't affect recipients much at all), and that number jumps to 75%.

So no mysterious government agent is going around, asking middle-class Americans to fork over more of their hard-earned cash, birdbrain. A HUGE, VAST majority of the country wants to raise taxes on the rich by the mere 3% required to decrease the revenue gap and reinvigorate the economy - as well as eliminating corporate loopholes (mostly sponsored by the GOP) that have enabled record profits and record margins for many, many huge American companies - all as the same time as these same companies (and both parties had their dirty fingers in this pie) take good-paying American jobs overseas, lay off more American workers, and further increase their record profits.

You tell me how you can defend the Tea Party apprach to economics. Go ahead. Justify it with facts. Feel free to liberally quote facts from the past, when massive tax cuts slashed revenues and unemployment increased. I can tell you whose watch all that happened under. Of course, were it not for the spineless Democrats (and leftist special interests) who (Congressionally) went along with this factual gerrimandering, the GOP could not have inflicted near that damage.

Do it. The challenge is there, RWF and FF. And please - no blogs. Facts. Cold, hard, irrefutable facts. Not Limbaugh rants, or quotes from clueless Tea Baggers.

[RedWingFan]

You tell me how you can defend the Tea Party apprach to economics.

Easy. The United States Constitution lays out what the government can tax it's citizens for. The Government has extended far beyond what they can lawfully imposes taxation. Done. Thanks for playing.

[Seven Wishes2]

So you're saying that every single Congress and President has been in violation of the Constitution - until Bush lowered the tax rates on the ultra-rich in 2001? That's perhaps the most laughable "justification" I've ever seen.

Let's contrast the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, shall we? That's when the neo-con movement really took hold - and government spending raced out of control. Even to you, it must be extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s Presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52. And let's not forget the job of Congress is to APPROVE a budget and make amendments to it, not propose it. Several months ago I provided a link showing that for every dollar a Democratic President has PROPOSED in spending (new or old) since Kennedy, a Republican President has PROPOSED MORE THAN TWICE THAT AMOUNT.

[slucero]

Debt ceiling raises come as a result of borrowing... so this chart should illustrate who is actually doing it...

Don't forget its the Congress that raises the debt ceiling... not the President..

[Seven Wishes2]

Yeah, yeah. You've barked up that tree before.

The President ALWAYS submits the request for the debt ceiling to be raised, and by what amount. ALWAYS. And Congress approves it. Never, ever...not once, in the history of America, has a President's request been denied, yet alone politicized. So it's the President who's doing the spending, and then sending the request - almost always via a one-sentence, one-sheet bill that's almost always immediately approved near-unanimously and without any conflict.

I respect you, slucero, and you're a very bright guy, but this one's a no-go, logically.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Yeah, yeah. You've barked up that tree before.

The President ALWAYS submits the request for the debt ceiling to be raised, and by what amount. ALWAYS. And Congress approves it. Never, ever...not once, in the history of America, has a President's request been denied, yet alone politicized. So it's the President who's doing the spending, and then sending the request - almost always via a one-sentence, one-sheet bill that's almost always immediately approved near-unanimously and without any conflict.

I respect you, slucero, and you're a very bright guy, but this one's a no-go, logically.

no its not, first of all. Its not the raising debt ceiling that's the problem per se , its the symptom of the underlying problem (spending).

After all if your credit card company sends you a card with a 10 grand limit, and you spend 10 grand on whores, booze and rock n roll its not the fault of the credit limit your spending is to blame. If and the company raises it again by another 10k and you throw another ten red headed hookers and crate of tequila on the card its still not their fault. And in the case of spending its congress who responds to budget requests of the President and then every congressman and senator pile in with earmarks and pork and the budget gets inflated, and its congress that allocates funds through the appropriation bill . Of course the President is to blame for spending when he signs the bill and then goes and uses the full extent of the discretionary spending given to him. Both the President and Congress is to blame for the debt, but Congress has the bulk of the power and input over the budget process.

[slucero]

Yeah, yeah. You've barked up that tree before.

The President ALWAYS submits the request for the debt ceiling to be raised, and by what amount. ALWAYS. And Congress approves it. Never, ever...not once, in the history of America, has a President's request been denied, yet alone politicized. So it's the President who's doing the spending, and then sending the request - almost always via a one-sentence, one-sheet bill that's almost always immediately approved near-unanimously and without any conflict.

I respect you, slucero, and you're a very bright guy, but this one's a no-go, logically.

You just said it yourself... Congress has always approved it... that means regardless of which party was in power in Congress, or in the White House... Congress has ALWAYS approved it...

Congress holds the purse-strings, its why the budget when passed becomes "law"... The President isn't passing it and making it law.. Congress is...

Congress is to blame... the whole stinkin' lot of em.

That chart shoes no clear single party being fiscally responsible... they ALL are culpable...

[S2M]

You tell me how you can defend the Tea Party apprach to economics. Go ahead. Justify it with facts.

The wealthy have no duty to be the custodians of lazy sloths.

And the wealthy have no right to make their millions off the backs, and the sweat, AND the tax loopholes - bailouts of the working class...where are OUR bailouts?

[S2M]

CutPaster, I see you failed to address the bailouts....good one. And the wealthy pass their tax burden onto to Joe consumer....taxes DO NOT come out of profit. How about all the money spent to AVOID paying taxes? You must be misremembering again....

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

And the wealthy pass their tax burden onto to Joe consumer....taxes DO NOT come out of profit. How about all the money spent to AVOID paying taxes? You must be misremembering again....

Wealth is the result of man's ability to think applied to the sphere of production and trade. Reason, ultimately, is the source of all wealth. As capitalism is the only social system that on principle leaves man free to think, capitalism is only system of wealth creation- Ayn Rand.

The wealthly are not the problem.

[S2M]

And the wealthy pass their tax burden onto to Joe consumer....taxes DO NOT come out of profit. How about all the money spent to AVOID paying taxes? You must be misremembering again....

Wealth is the result of man's ability to think applied to the sphere of production and trade. Reason, ultimately, is the source of all wealth. As capitalism is the only social system that on principle leaves man free to think, capitalism is only system of wealth creation- Ayn Rand.

The wealthly are not the problem.

No need to quote Miss Rand, I'm well versed in her philosophy. I have no problems with strict capitalism, as an economic paradigm....however, businessmen have been the recipients of bailouts, loopholes, and deregulation...as well as lobbying for legislature....all at the expense of the non-wealthy. THAT is what I have an issue with.

They asked the taxpayers for the bailouts, because they've ran their businesses into the ground....money that they would need to allow their companies to thrive again, money so banks could start lending again. But what happened? The money went to stockholders, so they could recoup their stockmarket loses. Hmmm, I'm pretty sure there is a built-in risk to the market...one that doesn't have a safety net...I wasn't recouped my 401k loses...why should they be special? Bailout money also went to CEO bonuses. Running companies poorly, yet getting bonuses...WOW. you and i would be fired...they get rewards.....Banks held onto their bailout money. They rarely lend...tell me the fairness in all this?

[SF-Dano]

S2M

No need to quote Miss Rand, I'm well versed in her philosophy. I have no problems with strict capitalism, as an economic paradigm....however, businessmen have been the recipients of bailouts, loopholes, and deregulation...as well as lobbying for legislature....all at the expense of the non-wealthy. THAT is what I have an issue with.

They asked the taxpayers for the bailouts, because they've ran their businesses into the ground....money that they would need to allow their companies to thrive again, money so banks could start lending again. But what happened? The money went to stockholders, so they could recoup their stockmarket loses. Hmmm, I'm pretty sure there is a built-in risk to the market...one that doesn't have a safety net...I wasn't recouped my 401k loses...why should they be special? Bailout money also went to CEO bonuses. Running companies poorly, yet getting bonuses...WOW. you and i would be fired...they get rewards.....Banks held onto their bailout money. They rarely lend...tell me the fairness in all this?

I agree with you on this. I can't believe how many times I have read about companies filing bankruptcy (whatever chapter) and then read a week later how the CEO and CFO just got 6 or 7 figure bonuses. Absofuckinglutely ridiculous.

[Seven Wishes2]

That's how Trump made his billions.

[Seven Wishes2]

With the dive in the Dow today, you're seeing Wall Street telling the government that the issue was NOT with the deficit. It was with a lack of job creation programs. And slashing key job-producing sectors of the budget is NOT the way to put this recession behind us. At least the Democrats have dome SOMETHING with job creation - though nearly not enough. The Tea Bagger / GOP "slash and burn"approach does NOT creat jobs, nor has the GOP come up with ONE jobs program.

[RocknRoll]

OK! This is floating around facebook and I found it pretty appropriate:

"The government today announced that it's changing the flag to a CONDOM, because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed. It just doesn't get more accurate than that!"

[Seven Wishes2]

And the wealthy pass their tax burden onto to Joe consumer....taxes DO NOT come out of profit. How about all the money spent to AVOID paying taxes? You must be misremembering again....

Wealth is the result of man's ability to think applied to the sphere of production and trade. Reason, ultimately, is the source of all wealth. As capitalism is the only social system that on principle leaves man free to think, capitalism is only system of wealth creation- Ayn Rand.

The wealthly are not the problem.

No, they're not.

The Republican tools in the House and Congress - and Obama, who continues to be an enabler - who continue to cater to the ultra-rich under the deluson it creats jobs and increases revenues - are.

[Seven Wishes2]

You tell me how you can defend the Tea Party apprach to economics. Go ahead. Justify it with facts.

The wealthy have no duty to be the custodians of lazy sloths.

Way to use facts - again!

The rich are paying their lowest rates ever - and unemployment has doubled as a consequence, and revenues are down! They're NOT creating jobs - and the ones that do are moving them overseas! The wealthy have NEVER had a higher share of the net wealth in America - and things couldn't be worse!

[conversationpc]

You tell me how you can defend the Tea Party apprach to economics. Go ahead. Justify it with facts.

The wealthy have no duty to be the custodians of lazy sloths.

Way to use facts - again!

The rich are paying their lowest rates ever - and unemployment has doubled as a consequence, and revenues are down! They're NOT creating jobs - and the ones that do are moving them overseas! The wealthy have NEVER had a higher share of the net wealth in America - and things couldn't be worse!

Unemployment, in my opinion, has risen because of overburdensome and intrusive government and radically out of control spending.

[Seven Wishes2]

Dave, I sincerely want to know where you're coming from.

Most businesses are creating a higher percentage revenue than ever before. There is more than enough capacity, but with the diminishment of a viable middle class, demand just isn't there. And since most government programs are job-creators - and the last major one (the stimulus package) was primarily a failure because 40% of it came through decreased tax revenue - which programs, exactly, are the job-killers, in your opinion? I'm sure we have some common ground here...surely you were shocked that I agreed that social programs need to be retooled and defense spending largely left untouched.

[conversationpc]

Dave, I sincerely want to know where you're coming from.

Most businesses are creating a higher percentage revenue than ever before. There is more than enough capacity, but with the diminishment of a viable middle class, demand just isn't there. And since most government programs are job-creators - and the last major one (the stimulus package) was primarily a failure because 40% of it came through decreased tax revenue - which programs, exactly, are the job-killers, in your opinion? I'm sure we have some common ground here...surely you were shocked that I agreed that social programs need to be retooled and defense spending largely left untouched.

Is it their revenue or profit that's higher? There's a difference. Higher percentage of revenue doesn't necessarily reflect profit. Higher revenue doesn't matter much if you're paying more of it in health care costs, goods and services, infrastructure, etc.

[donnaplease]

Yeah, yeah. You've barked up that tree before.

The President ALWAYS submits the request for the debt ceiling to be raised, and by what amount. ALWAYS. And Congress approves it. Never, ever...not once, in the history of America, has a President's request been denied, yet alone politicized. So it's the President who's doing the spending, and then sending the request - almost always via a one-sentence, one-sheet bill that's almost always immediately approved near-unanimously and without any conflict.

I respect you, slucero, and you're a very bright guy, but this one's a no-go, logically.

Isn't that what BO wanted to do just a few short years ago, before he was prez?

[RedWingFan]

Dave, I sincerely want to know where you're coming from.

Most businesses are creating a higher percentage revenue than ever before. There is more than enough capacity, but with the diminishment of a viable middle class, demand just isn't there. And since most government programs are job-creators - and the last major one (the stimulus package) was primarily a failure because 40% of it came through decreased tax revenue - which programs, exactly, are the job-killers, in your opinion? I'm sure we have some common ground here...surely you were shocked that I agreed that social programs need to be retooled and defense spending largely left untouched.

Is it their revenue or profit that's higher? There's a difference. Higher percentage of revenue doesn't necessarily reflect profit. Higher revenue doesn't matter much if you're paying more of it in health care costs, goods and services, infrastructure, etc.

Barnes & Nobles revenue and profit should rise a bit seeing how Borders bit the dust. Is that a positive sign of the strength of business?

[conversationpc]

Yeah, yeah. You've barked up that tree before.

The President ALWAYS submits the request for the debt ceiling to be raised, and by what amount. ALWAYS. And Congress approves it. Never, ever...not once, in the history of America, has a President's request been denied, yet alone politicized. So it's the President who's doing the spending, and then sending the request - almost always via a one-sentence, one-sheet bill that's almost always immediately approved near-unanimously and without any conflict.

I respect you, slucero, and you're a very bright guy, but this one's a no-go, logically.

Isn't that what BO wanted to do just a few short years ago, before he was prez?

Yup and also said that it was a failure in leadership to have to raise it at the time. I guess we now have a failure in leadership...in Congress AND the President.

[Seven Wishes2]

Interesting article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/december's-employment-numbers-things-better-than-they-were-not-where-they-need-to-be-535787.html

As $22.05 per share, S&P 500 companies are expected to set a record for fourth-quarter profits. In addition, analysts are expecting full-year 2011 profits of $96 per share, which would be a record.

By slashing payrolls and asking more of the employees they keep, as well as buying back shares, corporations have generated strong bottom-line earnings growth despite generally weak top-line revenue growth.

As a result, corporate profit margins have hit record levels, a key reason why the stock market has fared so well the past two years despite an unemployment rate hovering near 10%.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-12-28-jobs-overseas_N.htm

Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn't anyone hiring?
Actually, many American companies are — just maybe not in your town. They're
hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is
fat.


The trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States,
edging up to 9.8% last month, even though companies are performing
well: All but 4% of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this
year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008
financial meltdown.



But the jobs are going
elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank,
says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this
year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4
million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9%,
says Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist.



"There's
a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus
what is good for the American economy," says Scott.

[Seven Wishes2]

Yeah, yeah. You've barked up that tree before.

The President ALWAYS submits the request for the debt ceiling to be raised, and by what amount. ALWAYS. And Congress approves it. Never, ever...not once, in the history of America, has a President's request been denied, yet alone politicized. So it's the President who's doing the spending, and then sending the request - almost always via a one-sentence, one-sheet bill that's almost always immediately approved near-unanimously and without any conflict.

I respect you, slucero, and you're a very bright guy, but this one's a no-go, logically.

Isn't that what BO wanted to do just a few short years ago, before he was prez?

There's a difference between 10-12 Senators making a philosophical point (that had the capacity to go nowhere, since the GOP already had the vote to pass the debt ceiling increase) about Bush not including the cost of his two wars in the budget (and therefore sybolically attempting to force him to do that) and nearly driving the country into the ground using debunked economic principles.

[Seven Wishes2]

Yup and also said that it was a failure in leadership to have to raise it at the time. I guess we now have a failure in leadership...in Congress AND the President.

Obama is a failure in almost every possible way.

However, I still think he's better than anything the GOP has to offer this side of the moderate-in-conservative's-clothing Romney. Even with a double dip recession on the horizon, Bachmann doesn't stand a chance in hell because she's considered too radical. Besides, she had no problem voting for increasing the debt ceiling until 2011.

[S2M]

Hmmmm....didn't Reagan raise the debt ceiling 17 times?

[donnaplease]

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting it shouldn't have been done. It's just another one of those examples of BO making outrageous statements then and having to flip-flop on it now, after seeing that it's not a walk in the park to make these decisions. I think there's way too much of that 'gotcha' shit among the politicians (criticizing the other side for doing something that they have previously done as well) but I wish he would think before he continues to trash certain groups of people ~ those that he may be kissing up to in the near future.

Another question... is anyone else getting tired of hearing how the rich need to pay their FAIR SHARE? If they're paying 50% (or 30% after loopholes) but the lower income people pay 0%, how is it NOT their fair share? If the lower income brackets don't pay anything, maybe we should be asking them to pay their fair share...??? And what exactly IS a 'fair share'?

Now it seems Pennsylvania considers a cell phone a 'civil right' and is giving them out to welfare recipients.

[Seven Wishes2]

Except that's not the case at all, Donna. Everyone pays payroll taxes, as well as social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

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

Revenues are down, job-creating programs get slashed, consumer confidence wanes, the stock market peters out, investors get conservative, and companies move jobs overseas to increase revenue. It's a vicious cycle.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[donnaplease]

If someone has 500 dollars taken out of their paycheck over the course of a year, but gets a 4000 dollar refund (because of things like EIC), are they really paying payroll taxes?

What are Medicaid taxes?

I don't begin to try to understand how all this economic stuff works because of all the loopholes, deductions, etc. But, I do know that you can't tell someone that they are selfish for not paying their fair share, when around half of all American workers pay NO federal income tax (and often times get extra money that they didn't earn). I don't like using terms like 'class warfare' because it's just another catchphrase for a politician, but I don't like calling people selfish because they make a lot of money. I'm envious, but I don't want to vilify the rich.

I don't have the answers, Daniel. At this point it seems no one does. Even Alex Bennett is fed up, he was debating the origin of the word C'unt this morning on his radio show. Seems it dates back to medieval times...