I'm watching the Olympics last night, and I see an Obama commercial. He talked about Romney's proposed tax plan, which an independent firm says would raise taxes on the middle class, and lower taxes for the wealthy. I have no problem with Obama saying that, because that really happened.

Here's where Obama shows what a bold-faced liar he is...

Obama then says something to this effect...

"this kind of trickle-down tax effect has been tried before, and it's the reason the economy failed in the first place".

I have heard Obama say this many times, that the Bush tax cuts caused the economic collapse. Earth to liberals...the subprime mortgage crisis, and fishy financial products tied to mortgages, caused this recession. NOT TAX CUTS.

How can Obama say this with a straight face? How can any thinking, knowledgable person vote for him? Obama cannot fix the econmomy, if he refuses to admit what the underlying problem is!

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals today. On the conservative side, you have a guy like Paul Ryan say "I hate proposing this, but the numbers are irrefutable. Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable, so they need to be fixed."

What's the liberal response to this? Do they offer different numbers, to suggest that everything is OK? No.

Do they admit that there is a massive problem, but offer a different solution? No.

So what do they do? They say "See? Paul Ryan hates old people and poor people!!", and they (literally) make a commercial of Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound old lady off a cliff. That's their strategy - demonize conservatives, and then maintain the status quo.

Spence, PaulS, RIROCKHOUND, please tell me, exactly, where I'm wrong here? If I say Obama is a flat-out liar for saying tax cuts caused the recession, why would that be wrong?

Can't wait for your responses...

It's interesting that you failed to quote the line in the commercial that contradicts your post :devil2:

-spence

It's interesting that you failed to quote the line in the commercial that contradicts your post :devil2:

-spence

Which was?

Spence, the man said (has said many times) that the tax cuts "got us into this mess".

It's just not true. I know he wants it to be true, and you want it to be true, because it makes conservatives look bad. If it were true, I'd support liberal economics.

But...it's...not...true.

I tried to use monosyllabic words in that sentence in the hopes you might understand, but why bother...

They are all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing liars.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's interesting that you failed to quote the line in the commercial that contradicts your post :devil2:

-spence

Well...? What was it? Come on Spence, what was Obama's line that contradicts my post?

My post claimed that (1) Obama is blaming the recession of Republican tax cuts, and that (2) Obama is therefore lying.

I'm curious to knwo what Obama said later in that commercial, that contradicts that? Enlighten me, go ahead...

They are all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing liars.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't believe John McCain is...but we didn't want that, he wasn't hip enough.

Trust me.. To get where they are, you have to cheat lie and steal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which was?

Spence, the man said (has said many times) that the tax cuts "got us into this mess".

It's just not true. I know he wants it to be true, and you want it to be true, because it makes conservatives look bad. If it were true, I'd support liberal economics.

But...it's...not...true.

I tried to use monosyllabic words in that sentence in the hopes you might understand, but why bother...
Yes, because I'm such a dunce you need to talk down to me :huh:

If the commercial you quoted above is the same one I saw, Obama went on to add lose bank regulations as another big part of the problem...contradicting your post.

I'd hope we could all agree that the Bush Tax Cuts and regulatory policy did have a tremendous impact on both the deficit and the recession.

Does this justify going out of your way to angrily smear the Commander in Chief as a liar?

-spence

Yes, because I'm such a dunce you need to talk down to me :huh:

If the commercial you quoted above is the same one I saw, Obama went on to add lose bank regulations as another big part of the problem...contradicting your post.

I'd hope we could all agree that the Bush Tax Cuts and regulatory policy did have a tremendous impact on both the deficit and the recession.

Does this justify going out of your way to angrily smear the Commander in Chief as a liar?

-spence

Spence, please try to follow along...

Obama said that Republican tax cuts caused the current recession.

If, he said later on that the banks were also a part of the problem, UNLESS HE TOLD THE AUDIENCE TO IGNORE WHAT HE SAID ABOUT TAXES CAUSING THE RECESSION, then it does not contradict my post. Not in the least. He lied. Am I going too fast for you?

And if Obama did mention loose banking regulations contributed to he recession (which is true), do you know who signed the de-regulation into law, which allowed credit default swaps and collaterized debt obligations? The tea partier Bill Clinton.

"I'd hope we could all agree that the Bush Tax Cuts and regulatory policy did have a tremendous impact on both the deficit and the recession."

As for the tax cuts, you cannot say what impact, if any, they had on the recession, and here is why. Again, try to keep up...federal tax receipts INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts. It's possible that the cuts were stimulative. Meaning, if the tax rates were higher by X percent, you have no way of knowing that tax ravenues collected would have increased by the same X percent. You somehow don't know that, and I gather you work in a financial position of some sort? Unbelievable...

As for the regulatory policy...the de-regulation was passed by a Republican congress, and signed into law by Clinton. Both parties therefore seem to share blame. But I don't hear too many liberals suggesting that.

You say that the tax cuts had a tremendous impact on the recession? Spence, please tell me how a recession is caused by letting people keep a bit more of their own money? Hmmm?

Tax cuts may have worsened the debt, IF you assume that higher tax rates would lead to more tax dollars collected. But we know, we absolutely know for certain, that tax revenue can increase following tax cuts. I'm not saying that the tax cuts necessarily caused revenue to increase. But you can't say they didn't cause revenue to increase, either.

Spence, you're in finance? Do you know why stores have sales? Don't you admit that higher prices don't always mean you'll see higher revenue?

"because I'm such a dunce you need to talk down to me"

Bingo. Read your post here, Spence. It;s breathtakingly inaccurate at best, downright stupid at worst.

Finally, did Obama mention that one teeny-tiney cause of the recession was the liberal notion that poor people have a right to $400,000 mortgages? Did he admit to that? I bet not. And that also played a tremendous part. Yet Obama (and you) won't mention that...

But true to his liberal colors, Obama won't tell any of these people that they bear any responsibility for taking out stupid mortgages. Because one of the cornerstones of liberalsim is a complete, total, perfect, "lack of responsibility". If someone making $35,000 a year agreed to a $600,000 adjustable-rate mortgage, it wasn't that they were stupid and deserve to face the consequences. Nope. It was the banks's fault. Some mean Republican (probably a white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit) made them do it.

"Does this justify going out of your way to angrily smear the Commander in Chief as a liar?"

It's only a smear if it's not true. The man lied. So I called him a liar. Again, is that going too fast for you?



Good day.

I believe the quote was...

"You have a choice to make," he intones. "It's a choice between two very different plans for our country." Then he warns: "Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

There's certainly plenty of neutral economic analysis to defend his assertion, noting of course that it is a campaign commercial after all.

I'd also wager heavily that Obama believes it.

So lie, not so fast...

I'm not going to wade into the reasons for the housing crisis again. There are hundreds of pages on this site alone and my position is clear.

And you need anger management therapy. I'm really concerned you're not going to be able to make it until November.

-spence

I believe the quote was...



There's certainly plenty of neutral economic analysis to defend his assertion, noting of course that it is a campaign commercial after all.

I'd also wager heavily that Obama believes it.

So lie, not so fast...

I'm not going to wade into the reasons for the housing crisis again. There are hundreds of pages on this site alone and my position is clear.

And you need anger management therapy. I'm really concerned you're not going to be able to make it until November.

-spence

"There's certainly plenty of neutral economic analysis to defend his assertion"

His assertion is that trickle-down economics caused the recession. Spence, what is the "nuetral" data to support that?

If anything, it was trickle-up economics that caused this, namely, people at the bottom half of the scale spending more money than they shoiuld.

Spence, have you or Obama never heard of something called the "subprime mortgage crisis"? How did "trickle down economics", or tax cuts, cause that? Remember, in your last post, it was you who said that tax cuts had a "tremendous" impact on the recession, and I dispute that.

"you need anger management therapy"

Spence, you jumped the shark with that insipid coment about whites who oppose gay marriage being equivalent to those who wear "God hates fags" tshirts. That was your lowest moment on here, but hardly new territory for you. I'm not angry at all, but I have no more patience for the likes of you, and I'm taking the gloves off. I will expose your unsupported, deranged, ranting every chance I will get, because it's intellectually dishonest, cowardly, and not in any way productive in terms of solving real problems. If you don't like it, then put some small bit of reason in something you say.

We have srious problems to solve. You and your ilk deny the very existence of those problems (meaning, you deny that medicare is in huge trouble), and worse, you demonize people like Paul Ryan who propose solutions.

We have serious problems. We don't have any more time for charlatans who demonize those who try to propose honest solutions, rather than propose alternate solutions.

Paul Ryan: Medicare is in serious economic danger, it needs to be fixed in order to be saved. I propose one solution that addresses the problem...

Liberals: See? Paul Ryan hates sick people!

Do you really, really not see anything wrong with that dialogue Spence?

Don't worry about me. Not only will I "make it" to November, I'll be sitting pretty. The most forseeable, preventable economic crisis imaginable is coming. Your political bretheren have driven us to the edge of a precipice, and rather then steer away, they want to accelerate. If that's what you're going to do with our economy, those that see it coming and act rationally, will weather the storm just fine.

Spence, perhaps you have heard of the "tech bubble crisis", and the "subprime mortgage crisis". The next one will be worse, and it will be called somethiing like the "sovereign debt crisis". Your side has, for some reason, been successful in telling people not to worry about the fact that the dike is cracking and starting to leak. You can say "notihng to see here" all that all you want, but the physical laws of our world don't care about politics.

And you need anger management therapy. I'm really concerned you're not going to be able to make it until November.

-spence

i am in tears.....you've been pretty funny lately :jump1:

Trust me.. To get where they are, you have to cheat lie and steal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sounds like a great argument for limiting their power once they've cheated and lied and stolen their way there :uhuh:

unless you believe that they suddenly become benevolent and honest and virtuous and full of good intentions once there :)

Nobodies mentioning the USPS DEFAULTED!! on it's pension payments? Senate and Congress both walked away on that one.

The challenge is that your posts are so full of half-truths, made up crap, stereo-types and otherwise such out to lunch-ness that I don't even really know where to begin.

-spence

The challenge is that your posts are so full of half-truths, made up crap, stereo-types and otherwise such out to lunch-ness that I don't even really know where to begin.

-spence

You don't know where to begin? How about telling us how tax cuts (which means we get to keep a little more of our money) have a "tremendous impact" on the recession?

This recession was caused by 2 things...the subprime mortgage crisis, and fishy financial products that were leveraged to risky mortgages.

If you can tell me how tax cuts (especially tax cuts that were followed by INCREASES in tax revenue) had a "tremendous impact" on this recession, well, I am all ears...

I'll even get you started, how's that? You just fill in the blank. Here we go...

I, Spence, admit that the Bush tax cuts meant that all Americans got to keep a higher percentage of their incomes. Furthermore, after those tax cuts, I concede that tax revenue collected by the feds increased. I, Spence, feel that had a "tremendous impact" on the recession because_______________________________"

There. Now you know precisely where to begin.

Good luck, you'll need it...

out to lunch"ed"ness

i think that's correct....

you two are lucky TDF isn't around :rotf2:

out to lunch"ed"ness

i think that's correct....

you two are lucky TDF isn't around :rotf2:

Spence said that white people who are opposed to gay mariage are all in the same boat as jerks who wear "God hates fags" tshirts. I've never said anythiing here, nor could I, that compares with that. If the moderators let that fly, my stuff here pales in comparison.

The ironic thing is that gay marriage is an issue on which I agree with him. But he still managed to marginalize himself, even as I was trying to agree with him.

Here, I just want to know how tax cuts (especially cuts followed by increased tax ravenue) had a "tremendous impact" on the recession. I've heard Obama say that, though I see he doesn't bother to explain the connection. Spence, in true liberal parrot fashion, also regurgitates that talking point. I'm just trying to figure out how, if we get to keep a slightly higher percentage or our wages, that made anyone else poorer?

Afetr all, revenues collected, and government spending, both increased after those tax cuts. But if tax cuts had a "tremendous impact" on the recession, I genuinely want to know why, because I don't want to be misinformed.

Spence said that white people who are opposed to gay mariage are all in the same boat as jerks who wear "God hates fags" tshirts.

Afetr all, revenues collected, and government spending, both increased after those tax cuts. But if tax cuts had a "tremendous impact" on the recession, I genuinely want to know why, because I don't want to be misinformed.

he seemed satisfied with my answer on the subject and didn't accuse me of wearing off-color tee shirts :)

you ask alot of questions and demand answers that you should already know or expect the predictable response...if someone responds predictably, you shouldn't get angry....if someone believes that the only or largest issue that we face is that government is underfunded .....they will also believe that the increase or decrease in taxation is either the solution or the problem

you ask alot of questions and demand answers that you should already know or expect the predictable response...if someone responds predictably, you shouldn't get angry....if someone believes that the only or largest issue that we face is that government is underfunded .....they will also believe that the increase or decrease in taxation is either the solution or the problem

Stop being reasonable or I'll have to put you back on ignore :love:

he seemed satisfied with my answer on the subject and didn't accuse me of wearing off-color tee shirts :)

you ask alot of questions and demand answers that you should already know or expect the predictable response...if someone responds predictably, you shouldn't get angry....if someone believes that the only or largest issue that we face is that government is underfunded .....they will also believe that the increase or decrease in taxation is either the solution or the problem

Can't argue with any of that...

Back to the main point of this thread. Obama said in a commercial that trickle down tax cuts are what caused this recession. I'm not making that up, it's what the man said.

Can anyone here support that statement? Merely repeating it, is not supporting it.

you two are lucky TDF isn't around :rotf2:

That's because TDF actually had better things to do than be here to get between a couple of "Pre-Teen Girls" arguing whether its "Edward or Jacob" :rolleyes:

Until he gets to work...

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM (http://costofwar.com/)

They are all #^&#^&#^&#^&ing liars.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't know about you guys, but i love the newer version of nebe :uhuh: dude is spot on.

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

This is a peculiar understanding of "top down/bottom up." Generally, when applied to current politics, top down refers to government as being the mover and shaker of society with the people following its direction and regulation, and bottom up refers to the private sector, "the people" being the creators of and driving force, with the government, in a democratic free market system republic, being merely a cohesive force with limited powers granted to it and consented by the private sector. Tax policies, whether those of Obama or Bush or Romney, would all be top down policies. Tax cuts would be government, the top, relinquishing power thus restoring it to the bottom, the people, so, would be enabling the bottom to direct and produce more. Tax raises would be the opposite, shifting power to the top, the government, and siphoning power from the bottom. In effect, lowering taxes is a bottom up approach, and raising taxes is a top down approach. This applies to on whomever the taxes are raised or lowered, the rich, middle class, or poor. Top down tinkering to favor any class is usually, if not always, divisive. The theory that cutting taxes on those who create business and the ensuing jobs is a top down decision to enable bottom up conditions to flourish. But picking the winners and losers, the "class" that benefits from policies is class warfare that divides.

The founders and their Constitution never intended for an ultimate top down system of government that would divide the people and give it the power to create the conditions of society. That was to be left to the people, bottom up. Ironically, In their view, the top WAS the people. Though societal structures as flow charts or pyramids place government on top, their Constitution was the most anti-government government document ever written. It was government ceding power from the top of the flow-chart to the bottom sectors. It was government limiting itself from the top and dispersing it to the people to govern, for the most part, themselves. It was government limiting its own power, and letting the greatest portion of powers to remain in the hands of the people who were to be, in contrast to previous notions and practices of government, the actual top of the chart. Progressive shift in politics has now given government the highest position.

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM (http://costofwar.com/)

Well, when revenues went up with the Bush tax cuts, that could pay for the wars. But even more to the point, foreign wars are the responsibility of the Federal government and its legitimate financial responsibillity. Its current massive bureacracy and the programs and regulaltions it spues forth, spending trillions of dollars, for the most part, are not legitimate, Constitutional responsibilites. And now there is only the dwindling Afghanistan war, so tax cuts, even under the pay for the war responsibility, especially if they allow the private sector to flourish better as a bottom up force thus creating more gvt. revenue, shouldn't be such a problem, and especially if the gvt. stops, or at least cuts back on, its bureaucratic spending.

don't know about you guys, but i love the newer version of nebe :uhuh: dude is spot on.

LOL, I can' beliteve he has been posting for the last 6 months without
bashing Bush. :D

Well, when revenues went up with the Bush tax cuts, that could pay for the wars. But even more to the point, foreign wars are the responsibility of the Federal government and its legitimate financial responsibillity.

Yes, and in addition there was the costs of 9/11, forming Homeland Security and Katrina besides the wars,
all Federal responsibilities.
Now that those expenses are close to being over, there should be more $$ to help
pay down the debt unless it's used for expanding Big G even more.

I don't believe John McCain is...but we didn't want that, he wasn't hip enough.
I don't think it was so much he wasn't hip enough... but more that wretched woman that was chosen as his running mate.

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM (http://costofwar.com/)

"So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession?"

I never said that. I specifically said that the fishy financial products played a large role. But since the de-regulation of those products was passed by a Republican legislature and signed by a Democratic president, i don't see how one party is at fault.

Also, I think that the Bush tax cuts had just about nothing to do with it.

"we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone"

True. But I don't feel that government debt had much at all to do with this recesion. This recession was caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, and the rippling effectsthroughout the financial sector. Government debt will have everything to do with the next recession, however,

"Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before?"

I don't know. In the case of the bUsh tax cuts, I don't see that it matters. Because th efact is (and thgis seems to escape liberals), tax revenues increased aftre the tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts did not result in tax revenue being lower than it was before the tax rate cuts.

People, mostly liberals, do not seem to be able to grasp that. If tax revenues always decreased proportionately with tax rates, you'd have a point. But clearly they do not. What I mean is this...no one can say for sure that the feds would have collected more revenue, if Bush had not cut taxes. It's not that simple. All we know is this...after Bush cut tax rates (the percentage of one's salary that one pays) tax revenues collected by the feds (total dollars collected) hit their all-time high.

Liberals constantly claim (falsely) that the Bush tax cuts (1) onlyhelped the rich (that is demonstrably false), and (2) caused the recession (which makes no sense).

I think I have answered most, if not all, of your questions.

So can you answer one of mine? Just one...if Bush's reduction in tax rates were followed by an increase in tax dollars collected by the feds, how can that cause a recession?

The feds collected more tax dollars from us after the Bush tax cuts. Not less. More. That is undisputed fact, and it annihilates the liberal theory that increasing tax rates will automatically increase tax revenue. Even though it's demonstrably false, liberals continue to beat that drum.

Jim:
So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession? I see those specifically implicated here, and not the sole source being the 'tax cuts' ""Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top. Roll back regulations on big banks. And he says that if we do, our economy will grow and everyone will benefit." Obama continues: "But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place."

I see that all about the top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for.... how many of Bush's former advisers are now in the background for Romney... the answer is more than a few...

How about the so called Bush Tax cuts, coupled with two wars? So far that is at 1.3 trillion, not counting the long-term care of thousands of soldiers and their families who have been injured? Even if you take out Afghanistan (which I supported fully when it began) we are still close to a trillion on Iraq alone.... Have wars ever been coupled with tax CUTS in our history before? Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM (http://costofwar.com/)

"So you think a lack of oversight on the banks had nothing to do with the current recession?"

I specifically said that fishy financial products, tied to mortgages, played a big role. So I cannot imagine why on Earth you'd claim that I said something so stupid.

"top-down approach, which is clearly what Bush and Romney are advocating for"

Bush advocated a top-down approach? Then can you explain why Bush lowered tax rates for everyone, not just for the rich (which liberals like to lie about)?

Romney wants a small-government approach. Why does that, in your view, equate to a "top-down" approach? Romney isn't proposing to eliminate anti-poverty programs. He isn't proposing to eliminate welfare, food stamps, or unemployment. He just doesn't want the feds doing things they suck at. In a sane world, liberals would happily debate the merits of a limited-government approach. Instead, as always, they demonize the other side, saying things like "that's how we got into this mess, and he wants to do it again! We can't afford that!"

Rockhound, government debt didn't cause this recession (though it will cause the next one). And let me make one more point, and try to pay attention, because this is something liberals REALLY struggle with. Let's pretend I agree with you that federal tax revenue plays a big role in recessions...President Bush cut tax rates. Those lower tax rates were followed by the largest amount of tax dollars ever collected by the IRS.

Thus, where do liberals get off claiming that the Bush tax cuts cost us anything? You cannot know for sure that higher tax rates would have produced more tax revenue. It's not that simple. Why? Because demand increases when you reduce price. Always.

Rockhound, do you claim that higher tax rates will always produce more tax dollars, than lower tax rates? If so, why not impose tax rates of 100%?

It is irrefutable, demonstrable fact, that it's possible to lower tax rates and increase tax revenue. It happened within the last 10 years, for God's sakes.

Now, please don't suggest that I'm saying lower tax rates will always increase tax revenue, because that's equally ridiculous. But they don't always move proportionately. Liberals hate that fact, and thus cannot accept it.

I don't think it was so much he wasn't hip enough... but more that wretched woman that was chosen as his running mate.

That is a common misconception. Now, I'm no Palin fan. But the fact is, McCain was trailing in the polls untuil he picked Palin, at which time he lept ahead in the polls and stayed ahead, until the economy collapsed.

If you want to say she was a dunderhead, you have a point. But it's demonstrably false to say that she 'hurt' his campaign more than she 'helped' it. The media really likes to say she torpedoed his candidacy, but the simple facts do not back that up.

And when I say I'm no fan, I mean on the ticket for VP, not as a person. I'm shocked to hear you call her "wretched". Anyone who decides to give birth to a baby with Down's syndrome (and she did that before she was wealthy) gets an A+ for compassion in my book. I don't like her kid having a voyeuristic reality show. But I'd rather have lunch with her than the liar-in-chief.

from the crazy liberal Bruce Bartlett :smash:

"Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.

The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.
It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year."

and this:
"...And on July 15, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said, “Even the much-maligned Bush tax cuts brought in an additional $100 billion a year to government coffers.”

It is hard to know where these totally erroneous ideas come from. Federal revenue fell in 2001 from 2000, again in 2002 from 2001 and again in 2003 from 2002. Revenue did not get back to its 2000 level until 2005. More important, revenue as a share of G.D.P. was lower every year of the Bush presidency than it was in 2000."


Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/)

And when I say I'm no fan, I mean on the ticket for VP, not as a person. I'm shocked to hear you call her "wretched". Anyone who decides to give birth to a baby with Down's syndrome (and she did that before she was wealthy) gets an A+ for compassion in my book. I don't like her kid having a voyeuristic reality show. But I'd rather have lunch with her than the liar-in-chief.
She's had just as many, if not more, embarrassing public comments as Joe Biden has had and repeatedly displayed a level of ignorance to common issues that even Biden would have difficulty competing with.

I'd hardly say that she "decided" to give birth to a Down's baby, especially someone that says she'd be opposed to her own daughter having an abortion even if she was raped(Sarah Palin on Abortion (http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm)). It'd be the epitome of hypocritical if she hadn't had the child.

It is hard to know where these totally erroneous ideas come from. Federal revenue fell in 2001 from 2000, again in 2002 from 2001 and again in 2003 from 2002. Revenue did not get back to its 2000 level until 2005. More important, revenue as a share of G.D.P. was lower every year of the Bush presidency than it was in 2000."
Yea, trickle down works great when your economic growth is being fueled by a credit bubble!

-spence

Tax cuts would be government, the top, relinquishing power thus restoring it to the bottom, the people, so, would be enabling the bottom to direct and produce more. Tax raises would be the opposite, shifting power to the top, the government, and siphoning power from the bottom.
You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. Yes, this does assume a level of responsibility we've not seen from either party.

Progressive shift in politics has now given government the highest position.
Assuming that in this case "Progressive" = Republicans and Democrats?

And now there is only the dwindling Afghanistan war, so tax cuts, even under the pay for the war responsibility, especially if they allow the private sector to flourish better as a bottom up force thus creating more gvt. revenue, shouldn't be such a problem, and especially if the gvt. stops, or at least cuts back on, its bureaucratic spending.
There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

I'd also argue that government revenues ultimately have more to do with larger (increasingly global) economic trends rather than incentives like low taxation or deregulation.

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. Trusting industry has given our housing market a 10+ year wound...

How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?

-spence

You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. -spence

Spence...please elaborate on this gem :)

You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. Yes, this does assume a level of responsibility we've not seen from either party.

You might argue that if you believe that the more powerful the state is the more power the individual has. Since I don't believe that, I wouldn't argue that tax raises, or anything else which would give the central gvt. in our present situation even more power or control over our lives than it already has, would increase individual strength. Nor do I believe that the state making itself "stronger" at the expense of the individual equates with the "bottom" building a stronger state. Unless, of course, the state is, ultimately, the people who make their individual lives more prosperous. When the state and the people are one, then the bottom is the top, and their elected representatives are their servants, the bottom, who will be constrained by the limits that the people have enumerated in their constitution, And the people, who you refer to as the bottom, can then make a stronger state because the people will direct by their actions how they, the state, will thrive. But when the state and the people are not one, and the state is the top, and the people are the bottom who are not directly represented by responsive servants, but are dictated to by unelected bureaucrats appointed with plenary, unrepresentative power by those servants, that is tyranny and does not make the true state, the people, stronger. It strengthens only the stolen state, that power separated from the people, a select few experts who allow rights and priveleges to a people that once had inalienable rights, and directs the "vector" of a people who once determined their own.

And there is no level of responsibility that those in this top down state, separate from the people who are relegated to the bottom, that applies, except the responsibility to do as they choose. When the people are ruled rather than rule, it is the people who must be responsible to the government, not vice versa. To expect undefined responsibility from those you have allowed to rule you is your last and hopeless wish. If you want responsibility, rule yourself. We would have that under Constitutional governance.

Assuming that in this case "Progressive" = Republicans and Democrats?

Of course. I've said so several times. That's why I said progressive, not Democrat or Republican.


There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

There are no dividends when you run a deficit. It is more dificult to fund a war when you run a deficit. If you continually run deficits, as we mostly have for 80 years or so, it is difficult to run anything.

I'd also argue that government revenues ultimately have more to do with larger (increasingly global) economic trends rather than incentives like low taxation or deregulation.

Low taxation and less regulation would put us in a competitive position in the global market, and would lessen the need to funnel stuff offshore.

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. Trusting industry has given our housing market a 10+ year wound...

How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?

-spence

Depends on what you mean by positive. And it depends on what you mean by historic. There were boom times with lower taxes and less regulation in the past. But, if you prefer Wilson's, and the progressives', idea of society being a well ordered bee hive, directed by government, then tinkering with economic levers from the "top" may be your way of achieving a positive vector. If you prefer individual sovereignty, the vector should be directed by the people, not the government.

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. -spence

This also includes Corporate Taxes: Corporate income taxes for the past three years have hovered at just over 1 percent of GDP, lower than for any three-year period since World War II. The average for OECD countries is 3.5 percent.

The problem I have is the amount of $$’s wasted. Too many stories of gross and wasteful spending and so much scandal in our Government. Regardless of taxes being historically low, an argument could be made that government spending is historically high. So it’s the chicken and the egg, cut spending or increase taxes. I think we need a little of both from everyone. Not just concessions from the rich or the poor, but from everyone. (even though I don’t know what is rich and what is poor)

Depends on what you mean by positive. And it depends on what you mean by historic. But, if you prefer Wilson's, and the progressives', idea of society being a well ordered bee hive, directed by government, then tinkering with economic levers from the "top" may be your way of achieving a positive vector. If you prefer individual sovereignty, the vector should be directed by the people, not the government.

lower taxes and less reguation allow the individual the freedom to determine their own vector....they also restrict the governemnt's ability to interfere in the life of the individual...which is a problem for the progressive who believes that everything must flow through government and obviously have very difficult time relinquishing whatever control they gain over the individual through government regulation and various forms of taxation.....

this whole discussion reminds me of the Milton Friedman-Donahue from the 70's...nothing has really changed and Donahue and company will never learn..the montra is essentially the same:uhuh:

DONAHUE: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?


FRIEDMAN: Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

DONAHUE: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

FRIEDMAN: And what does reward virtue? Do you think the communist commissar rewards virtue? Do you think Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us.

DONAHUE: Well --

FRIEDMAN: I don't even trust you to do that.




ahhh...the "angels who are going to organize society for us"...the "Philosopher Kings"

Yuval Levin had a great analysis of this recently

This remarkable window into the president’s thinking shows us not only a man chilly toward the potential of individual initiative, and not only a man deluded about the nature of his opponents and their views, but also (and perhaps most important) a man with a staggeringly thin idea of common action in American life.

The president simply equates doing things together with doing things through government. He sees the citizen and the state, and nothing in between — and thus sees every political question as a choice between radical individualism and a federal program.

But most of life is lived somewhere between those two extremes, and American life in particular has given rise to unprecedented human flourishing because we have allowed the institutions that occupy the middle ground — the family, civil society, and the private economy — to thrive in relative freedom.

The Hollow Republic - Yuval Levin - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312771/hollow-republic-yuval-levin)

it was not "trusting industry" or lack of regulation that gave our housing industry a 10 year wound, it was removal by government through cohersion, threats and supposed good intentions, any "risk" for lenders and other players up the line creating the environment for all sorts of unfortunate consequences, government also created a culture that sought to reduce standards and requirements for home ownership to such a level that not only was there little risk for the lenders but little responsibiity required on the part of the buyers ....this happens frequently when government steps in to assume or reduce the risk to the individual or entity and corresponding responsibility to society....government creates vehicals that carpool the risk in life for the individual(and other entities) and mitigate responsibiity and often in areas where they have no business meddeling, they load the vehical up with both unwilling and willing participants and then the vehical goes careening off a cliff....

You could also argue that in our present situation tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper. Yes, this does assume a level of responsibility we've not seen from either party.


Assuming that in this case "Progressive" = Republicans and Democrats?


There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

I'd also argue that government revenues ultimately have more to do with larger (increasingly global) economic trends rather than incentives like low taxation or deregulation.

Our taxes are at historic lows and wealth continues to concentrate at the top and be funneled offshore. Trusting industry has given our housing market a 10+ year wound...

How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?

-spence

"tax raises would enable the bottom by building a stronger state in which to prosper"

Which explains why there is no poverty in places with strong, tax-funded states like Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.

"Our taxes are at historic lows ..."

That makes a great bumper-sticker, because yes there were tax rates in the 70's at one point. But that argument is destroyed when you consider that just about no one paid those taxes, because there were even more shelters then...

Furthermore Spence, you need to consider all taxes. For example, CT did not have an income tax 25 years ago, nowt it's around 5.5%.

I'm guessing that the average earner works longer into the year to pay his tax bill, than he did 50 years ago. I don't have the data to prove that, but it cannot be false.

"There is no war dividend when you're running a deficit.

"

True. But despite what people on your side of the ailse like to claim, we don't enter into wars for profit.

"How can anyone seriously argue that yet lower taxes and even less regulation is going to change the vector positively for the American people?"

Because it worked when Clinton did it. And it worked beter after Bush did it. You work in finance, right? Wasn't the economy robust from 1996-2007? Granted, much of that was fueled by a reckless housing bubble, but not all of it.

Spence, lower taxes means people like me and you get to keep more of our money. You honestly don't think that would help you? And assuming you will either spend, donate, invest, or save that money in a bank, it will help others, too. That's not rocket science.

Spence, let me turn that around. What evidence do you have, to suggest that more taxes and more regulation, will improve the situation?

No one is saying we don't need any regulation. but there is such a thing as too much regulation.

Das Vedanya...

"Our taxes are at historic lows ..."

That makes a great bumper-sticker, because yes there were tax rates in the 70's at one point. But that argument is destroyed when you consider that just about no one paid those taxes, because there were even more shelters then...


AMT for example.............

AMT for example.............

The only fair way to look at it is dollar amounts paid compared to gross income. The average is almost exactly the same today then after the Reagan tax cuts of ~1986. Here are the numbers:

"...calculating all taxes paid by Americans and dividing the sum by the nation's total income. To make this calculation, we turned to the Tax Foundation's annual "Tax Freedom Day" report, which offers calculations of total tax burden going back to 1900. (There was no federal income tax then, but there were state and other taxes.)

The foundation's expected tax burden for 2010 is 26.9 percent, up slightly from the 2009 tax burden of 26.6 percent. (This is not unusual: The tax burden typically falls during recessions, as taxpayers move to lower tax brackets.)

Under Eisenhower, that figure ranged from 24.8 percent to 27.7 percent, with the figure lower than 26.9 percent for seven out of eight years. So by this measurement, the tax burden was lower most of the time under Eisenhower.

Under Reagan, it ranged from 29.2 percent to 31.1 percent, meaning that in all eight years it was higher than the current tax burden under Obama."

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says taxes are lower today than under Reagan, Eisenhower (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-are-lower-today-under-reag/)

I can understand if someone still believes that lower tax rates would be better for the economy. However, all the arguments about rates and stuff need to be about actual paid. Same reason why it is bogus for the cons to throw around the 39% corporate tax rate as if it is what companies actually pay.

The only fair way to look at it is dollar amounts paid compared to gross income. .

Great point. It's misleading for consrevatives to point to the corporate rate being high, and it's equally misleading for a liberal to point to higher individual rates decades ago.

Zimmy, are your percentages reflective of all taxes, feredal, state and local? I'm not doubting your numbers, just curious what's in there.

And what worries many of us is the magnitude by which we are overspending, particularly on entitlements. If you give an honest answer to the question "what do tax rates need to be, to pay for these entitlement programs", I think that answer will scare the hell out of people. Liberals (as a group) will not ever address that question, and conservatives (as a group) do a terrible job of getting that message across.

The only fair way to look at it is dollar amounts paid compared to gross income. The average is almost exactly the same today then after the Reagan tax cuts of ~1986. Here are the numbers:

"...calculating all taxes paid by Americans and dividing the sum by the nation's total income. To make this calculation, we turned to the Tax Foundation's annual "Tax Freedom Day" report, which offers calculations of total tax burden going back to 1900. (There was no federal income tax then, but there were state and other taxes.)

The foundation's expected tax burden for 2010 is 26.9 percent, up slightly from the 2009 tax burden of 26.6 percent. (This is not unusual: The tax burden typically falls during recessions, as taxpayers move to lower tax brackets.)

Under Eisenhower, that figure ranged from 24.8 percent to 27.7 percent, with the figure lower than 26.9 percent for seven out of eight years. So by this measurement, the tax burden was lower most of the time under Eisenhower.

Under Reagan, it ranged from 29.2 percent to 31.1 percent, meaning that in all eight years it was higher than the current tax burden under Obama."

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says taxes are lower today than under Reagan, Eisenhower (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-are-lower-today-under-reag/)

I can understand if someone still believes that lower tax rates would be better for the economy. However, all the arguments about rates and stuff need to be about actual paid. Same reason why it is bogus for the cons to throw around the 39% corporate tax rate as if it is what companies actually pay.

Obama's statement that "rates" are lower today than under Reagan or Eisenhower are mostly true, but deceptively so, as your linked article notes. And deceptive, as well, in ways that the article doesn't mention. And, in itself, meaningless--Obama doesn't mention that they are not lower than under Bush--begging a so what? His intention, I believe, is to create the "meaning," perception, that he is actually a tax cutter, not a typical tax and spender. That he is fiscally conservative, even more than Eisenhower, or Reagan. The article offers caveats to that perception, one of which you quote. The total tax burden was actually less under Eisenhower than under Obama. So, as you say, if the only fair way to look at it is by total tax burden, then, though rates are lower now, the burden was less under Eisenhower. Also, though rates were much higher (at the top incomes) then, the loopholes were more extravagent, and those rates were not paid, so the comparison of rates is irrelevant. Plus, Reagan began the process of reducing those loopholes, thus was able to lower rates. He began, as Spence likes to say, a vector. He started in office with top rates at 70% and reduced them to 50% and then to 28%. And the current rates that Obama brags about were created by Bush, not him. Though he hasn't yet increased rates, he has, as the article says created or raised some taxes other than income, and some have, conveniently, not kicked in yet, such as the tax penalty for non-insurance. And he wants to raise the "rates" on higher incomes. Unlike Reagan, Obama's vector seems to be trending upward. And is it "fair" when looking at the total burden, that the burden of income taxes, even if the rates are the same, is shifted to fewer payers (nearly half don't pay federal income tax now)?

Whether lower rates would be better for the "economy" or not might be debatable. But if the context of the debate does not include what, ultimately, type of government we wish to have, the big choice that Obama says we are going to make in November, it is all just wonkish tweaking that, if the market is allowed to prevail, and we can survive bad choices, we can recover from if we choose to maintain and re-energize a free market economy directed by minimally encumbered individuals.

His intention, I believe, is to create the "meaning," perception, that he is actually a tax cutter, not a typical tax and spender. That he is fiscally conservative, even more than Eisenhower, or Reagan.

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.
"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.

I beleive his point is that there is a choice between his policies and Mitts. He would close loopholes, slightly raise the rate on the top 1%, and keep middle and lower class taxes low. Romney would slash rates on the top 1%, who are already paying historically low rates. I am pretty sure he isn't trying to say he is more fiscally conservative than Reagan.

Then why bring in comparisons with Eisenhower and Reagan. Did he compare Mitt's policies to Eisenhower and Reagan? I just read the quote not the context from which it's taken, so don't know. As you must know by now since it's been mentioned here several times and there are articles on the subject, the "rates" under Eisenhower and others up to Reagan were more fiction than fact in terms of what was actually paid. In many cases, what was actually paid was far less than what is paid today. So the "rates" being historically low is a meaningless point.

Mentioning and comparing himself to Eisenhower and Reagan, who have become more widely admired by the public and historians now than in the past, is obviously a slant to make himself appear other than what he is. And it makes Eisenhower and Reagan look other than what they were. I mentioned Reagan's tremendous cuts in rates all-around. And though Obama compares "his" rates favorably to those other two, they are not even his rates, but Bush's, who also cut rates all-around. I mentioned that Obama has already raised some taxes and rates other than income, and that unlike his predecessors, his tax rate "vector" is up, not down.

As far as Mitt's policies, they might well be a corrective to the burden of previous rates that under different, market oriented, policies than Obama, would "stimulate" the economy more than throwing federal money at it.

Again, is this the great difference that we are voting for in Nov.?

Then why bring in comparisons with Eisenhower and Reagan.

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.

He mostly has faced a Republican majority who's mantra is "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

He mostly has faced a Republican majority who's mantra is "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
For a President that campaigned on getting rid of the aisle and making sure both sides work together, he did a pretty good job early on of putting up a solid brick wall separating -Ds from -Rs.

Also, you're ignoring the Executive Orders he has made that aren't dependent on approval by that Republican majority.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;952687Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.[/QUOTE]

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.

Bush also created a massive security infastructure from scratch, and in short order. Every single security expert said we would get attacked again, and IMHO opinion he did a decent job keeping us safe.

Obama gets credit (deservedly so) for his aggressive actions in some areas of the war on terror, but all he really did was leave the Bush mechanisms in place, and reap the rewards.

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

Not yet, they aren't like Belgium's rates. But unless we make serious changes to entitlement programs, Belgium is going to be looking pretty good. That's future reality.

He mostly has faced a Republican majority ."

I don't know what kind of math you're doing. For two entire years, Obama had a Democrat majority in the House, and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. For far more than 50% of his term, the Republicans literally could do nothing to stop him from doing anything he wanted.

As you said, let's start by working in reality...

I don't know what kind of math you're doing. For two entire years, Obama had a Democrat majority in the House, and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. For far more than 50% of his term, the Republicans literally could do nothing to stop him from doing anything he wanted.

As you said, let's start by working in reality...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Here is a time line for you: President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit (http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-for-two.html)

"He would..." is a pretty loaded statement considering that aside from health care, he hasn't done a whole lot domestically to benefit the American people that he said he would do.

Again, aside from health care, his *actions* pretty much make him just George W. Bush 2.0.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Kept (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/)

Most cons would complain he has done too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Kept (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/)

Most cons would complain he has done too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You got me, Brown came in when he did, at which point there were 59 Democrats. However...

Does the 59 Democrats include independent Joe Lieberman of CT, a radical left-winger (on everything except the Iraq War) who caucused with the Democrats?

Also, the person who wrote that timeline made a mistake that was probably self-serving. You don't need 60 votes to pass a bill, you need 60 to avoid fillibuster. Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010, after Scott Brown was elected.

I'm not going to say that Republicans haven't prevented him from doing anything, of course they have. But he can't blame them for every single thing he tried to do but failed. During the time he had ultimate control, what did he do? Not very much. Can't blame that on the GOP, right?

But you did catch me putting my foot in my mouth...but so did you, you said Obama has been faced with a "Republican majority" for two years, and that's not true. The Republicans have not even come close to a majority in the Senate since he took office, and have only had a majority in the house for the last 20 months...

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.

Bush also created a massive security infastructure from scratch, and in short order. Every single security expert said we would get attacked again, and IMHO opinion he did a decent job keeping us safe.

Obama gets credit (deservedly so) for his aggressive actions in some areas of the war on terror, but all he really did was leave the Bush mechanisms in place, and reap the rewards.
The first yields no benefit to the American people. I'm sorry but saving 1 million people in Africa from AIDS just means that they're now going to die from famine, war or some other disease. With the number of homeless children and vets that we have in this country, the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me.

In the second, it could be argued that Bush's "security infrastructure", along with his Patriot Act could be argued to be the pinnacle point in which we started down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist.

He mostly has faced a Republican majority who's mantra is "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."


you said Obama has been faced with a "Republican majority" for two years, and that's not true. The Republicans have not even come close to a majority in the Senate since he took office, and have only had a majority in the house for the last 20 months...

I never said anything about a republican majority for two years. And the point of my post was that it was not a free for all for the Democrats for his first two years. That is a complete distortion of reality. They had a filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. A bit more than four months. 20 months to 4 might be "mostly", not counting all the other time before that where filibuter in the senate could stop his agenda.

He brings it up because there is a loud group of people trying to spin the perception that we have tax rates like Belgium. They are not. The conversation needs to be based around reality.

I am not familiar with this loud group claiming that we have tax rates like Belgium. That is so obviously wrong that it would hardly be worth trying to rebut by bringing up Reagan and Eisenhower. For one, Belgium has a VAT tax. Some (many?) here feel we are headed for such a tax here. Then we would be more like Belgium.

Also, the argument that U.S. corporations pay far less than our high corporate tax rate, as if that makes their tax burden less than foreign companies, is misleading. Some do pay an effective amount below the rate, but some pay close to it. On average, according to a N.Y. Times business section article on May 2, 2011, U.S. companies pay about 25% of their profits in corporate taxes. They pay state and local corp. taxes, as well, that many foreign companies don't pay. What they actually pay in federal taxes, according to the article is a few percentage points higher than those in most other major industrial countries. Nor does the article specify whether the comparison is to what most foreign companies actually pay, or if it is to their tax "rates." Most foreign countries also allow for many exemptions so that when we compare American "effective" rates to foreign tax "rates" it leaves out what foreign effective rates are.

As for our corporations shipping money offshore (transferring profits to countries with lower or non-existent rates) only happens because those countries DO have lower rates.

Again, is this what this coming election is about?

The first yields no benefit to the American people. I'm sorry but saving 1 million people in Africa from AIDS just means that they're now going to die from famine, war or some other disease. With the number of homeless children and vets that we have in this country, the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me.

In the second, it could be argued that Bush's "security infrastructure", along with his Patriot Act could be argued to be the pinnacle point in which we started down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist.

"The first yields no benefit to the American people. "

I'll respectfully disagree, as the yield to this American is quite astounding.

"the billions sent overseas for other countries' people is a major sticking point for me."

You make a good point there. All I can say to that is this...many problems here (like poverty and homelessness) can not be solved by throwing money at tham. Many people are not poor due to a lack of money, they are poor because of laziness or menatl disease or addiction. Can't cure that with money. But you absolutely can save the life of an African baby, born with AIDS, with money.

But as usual, you make a logical point about solving our own problems first. There is some validity to that.

"down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist"

I'll respectfully disagree again. IMHO, the world changed on 09/11, and we can respond to the new threat or we can ignore it. I have never felt like I was being treated like a terrorist. I don't see any large-scale elimination of inalienable rights. I don't see that I have an inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane, I can just as easily buy it when I get there.

Come on...

First and foremost, George Bush is credited with saving the lives of more than one million Africans, thanks to a massive AIDS initiative that he spearheaded (called EPFAR). In a fair world, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize for that. Obama will never do anything that comes close to that.


Some might say pushing and signing a bill that will ensure health care for millions of people comes somewhat close to that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some might say pushing and signing a bill that will ensure health care for millions of people comes somewhat close to that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hope he tries to run on that one :uhuh:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1] informally referred to as Obamacare,[2] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

January 24, 2012
More Americans Uninsured in 2011

However, more adults aged 18 to 26 now covered

by Elizabeth Mendes

This is the first article in an in-depth series on the state of health insurance coverage in America. Future articles will explore trends in types of health insurance coverage and uninsured rates across states.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More American adults lacked health insurance coverage last year than in any year since Gallup and Healthways started tracking it in 2008. The uninsured rate has been increasing since 2008, climbing to 17.1% in 2011.


at least we're covering more "children" ages 18-26...good place to start or reinforce the road to government dependence:uhuh: oh wait....we're actually forcing insurance companies to accept them as children so that they can stay on mommy and daddy's policy....

Young Adults Seem to Benefit From New Healthcare Law

U.S. adults aged 18 to 25 -- who are now allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26 because of a provision of the 2010 healthcare law -- are less likely to be uninsured than in previous years. The percentage of uninsured declined further in 2011 to 24.5%, from 27.6% in 2010 and 28.2% in 2009. Although this group is still among the most likely to be uninsured, it is the only group Gallup tracks that has seen a significant decline in the percentage uninsured in 2011.


should have made it 36.....then the numbers would be really inmpressive:rotf2:

Some might say pushing and signing a bill that will ensure health care for millions of people comes somewhat close to that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some might say that...but as of now, it hasn't happened yet. Bush saved those lives, past tense. Obamacare has lofty goals, which are nowhere near accomplished yet. Time will tell if Obamacare does what he said it would do, but we know for a fact what Bush did. And Bush's feat remains mostly anonymous because of deranged hatred.

hope he tries to run on that one :uhuh:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1] informally referred to as Obamacare,[2] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

January 24, 2012
More Americans Uninsured in 2011

However, more adults aged 18 to 26 now covered

by Elizabeth Mendes

This is the first article in an in-depth series on the state of health insurance coverage in America. Future articles will explore trends in types of health insurance coverage and uninsured rates across states.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More American adults lacked health insurance coverage last year than in any year since Gallup and Healthways started tracking it in 2008. The uninsured rate has been increasing since 2008, climbing to 17.1% in 2011.
Most of the law isnt in effect. You wanted to point out that one of the few parts that went into effect has lowered the uninsured rate?


at least we're covering more "children" ages 18-26...good place to start or reinforce the road to government dependence:uhuh: oh wait....we're actually forcing insurance companies to accept them as children so that they can stay on mommy and daddy's policy....

Young Adults Seem to Benefit From New Healthcare Law

U.S. adults aged 18 to 25 -- who are now allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26 because of a provision of the 2010 healthcare law -- are less likely to be uninsured than in previous years. The percentage of uninsured declined further in 2011 to 24.5%, from 27.6% in 2010 and 28.2% in 2009. Although this group is still among the most likely to be uninsured, it is the only group Gallup tracks that has seen a significant decline in the percentage uninsured in 2011.


should have made it 36.....then the numbers would be really inmpressive:rotf2:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most of the law isnt in effect. You wanted to point out that one of the few parts that went into effect has lowered the uninsured rate?

"down the rabbit hole of a totalitarian-like government where once inalienable rights are blatantly infringed upon and every citizen is treated as a terrorist"

I'll respectfully disagree again. IMHO, the world changed on 09/11, and we can respond to the new threat or we can ignore it. I have never felt like I was being treated like a terrorist. I don't see any large-scale elimination of inalienable rights. I don't see that I have an inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane, I can just as easily buy it when I get there.

You don't have the inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane because the plane is not your property. Supposedly, the plane belongs to the airline company, and it has a right to say what you can bring onto its planes. That is the company's inalienable right to its property. It acts constitutionally when, on its uncoerced volition, it prohibits the shampoo bottle. When, however, it is coerced to do so by the government, the government, in effect, owns that piece of its property, and is denying, in that respect, its inalienable right and ownership of that property. The overreaching government in this case will say that it is acting under the now ubiqitous commerce clause. Originalists would say that the commerce clause was intended to promote commercial cooperation among the States, but not a tool for the central government to own commerce. The clause was not intended to allow the central government to become a commercial entity, nor one which would usurp the commercial powers of private entities. A progressive would say that the Constitution has evolved, and, indeed, the Federal Government does have, as a necessity, unlimited powers under various clauses.

Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake. The progressive shift of property is from the individual, as originally intended, to the public, which, of course, is expressed in, and by, the government. For the public good, individual ownership of property must be limited to "reasonable" and "fair" or "equitable" bounds. Property was orignally one of the main tenets of the Founders Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness was a more generalized version of the pursuit and ownership of property.

And this attack on property, and inalienable rights, started down, as JohnnyD says, the rabbit hole of a totalitarian like government long before Bush. And it is parroted as a benevolent exercise by various speeches of Obama, such as his you-didn't-build-it speech. It is government, directly, or through its regulatory directions of the people, that did it. We build publicly more and more, and own as individuals, less and less, through the regulatory schemes of a benevolent gvt. that directs our efforts toward the public good, not the selfish private.

You don't have the inalienable right to bring a shampoo bottle on a plane because the plane is not your property. Supposedly, the plane belongs to the airline company, and it has a right to say what you can bring onto its planes. That is the company's inalienable right to its property. It acts constitutionally when, on its uncoerced volition, it prohibits the shampoo bottle. When, however, it is coerced to do so by the government, the government, in effect, owns that piece of its property, and is denying, in that respect, its inalienable right and ownership of that property. The overreaching government in this case will say that it is acting under the now ubiqitous commerce clause. Originalists would say that the commerce clause was intended to promote commercial cooperation among the States, but not a tool for the central government to own commerce. The clause was not intended to allow the central government to become a commercial entity, nor one which would usurp the commercial powers of private entities. A progressive would say that the Constitution has evolved, and, indeed, the Federal Government does have, as a necessity, unlimited powers under various clauses.

Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake. The progressive shift of property is from the individual, as originally intended, to the public, which, of course, is expressed in, and by, the government. For the public good, individual ownership of property must be limited to "reasonable" and "fair" or "equitable" bounds. Property was orignally one of the main tenets of the Founders Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness was a more generalized version of the pursuit and ownership of property.

And this attack on property, and inalienable rights, started down, as JohnnyD says, the rabbit hole of a totalitarian like government long before Bush. And it is parroted as a benevolent exercise by various speeches of Obama, such as his you-didn't-build-it speech. It is government, directly, or through its regulatory directions of the people, that did it. We build publicly more and more, and own as individuals, less and less, through the regulatory schemes of a benevolent gvt. that directs our efforts toward the public good, not the selfish private.

"That is the company's inalienable right to its property..."

The airline doesn't own the space above my house where it flies the plane. Therefore, I have no problem with the feds telling airlines that they have to take precautions before they take to the skies. If an airline doesn't ant to put security measures into place, that endangers all of us.

"Property and the right to it is precisely one of the original principles that progressives intend to remake."

Agreed 100%. I just don't feel like the post 09/11 security measures have reduced my freedoms by any measurable amount.

I see a lot of things that scare me out there, most of them economic in nature, because I'm a numbers guy. But not many safety measures that are part of the war on terror, worry me. I only worry that we aren't going far enough in the name of political correctness.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most of the law isnt in effect. You wanted to point out that one of the few parts that went into effect has lowered the uninsured rate?

I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that most of those 18-26 year olds would prefer a job to a free ride on their parents health insurance policy and a room in their basement :uhuh:

I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that most of those 18-26 year olds would prefer a job to a free ride on their parents health insurance policy and a room in their basement :uhuh:

I hope you're right. But the fact that a large majority of those 18-26 year olds will vote for Obama, makes me think they'd prefer a handout.

How do you add $4 trillion to the debt, and still have unemployment over 8%...Not much to show for that expenditure...

"That is the company's inalienable right to its property..."

The airline doesn't own the space above my house where it flies the plane. Therefore, I have no problem with the feds telling airlines that they have to take precautions before they take to the skies.

Who "owns" the space above your house, and how high up is it owned. Are there any international and free levels? Are you saying the Federal government owns the space. And it's quite a leap from "The airline doesn't own the space" to "I have no problem with the feds telling airlines . . ." What is the connection between the airlines not owning the space to the gvt. telling them what to do? Under the premise that airlines not owning the space gives the gvt. power to tell them what precautions they must take, what is it that the government cannot demand the airlines do? Do you own that space above your house? Remember, there is a difference between space and atmosphere. Since the space is above your house, it is certain that you are in various ways entering that space with every breath you breath or car you drive or cigarette you smoke, or in so many innumerable ways. Does this give gvt. the power to make you do as it wishes? Do you believe that market competition is a more effective driving economic force than government regulation? Haven't airlines taken many "precautions" without being told by government to do so?

If an airline doesn't ant to put security measures into place, that endangers all of us.

I think JohnnyD's point about the "rabbit hole" of totalitarian like gvt. leading to every citizen being treated like a terrorist, exagerated as it is (you do understant hyperbole, right?) stems from security measures being directed at citizens rather than actual terrorists. Rather than the government constitutionally protecting us from terrorists by securing borders, cooperating with States to find and deport aliens, and demanding the exportation of those whose visas have expired, keeping tabs on all who are here for temporary purposes, and, most importantly, taking the so-called war on terror to those places where they reside, hide, and breed, in an all-out war of actual annihilation or surrender of the enemies . . . rather than that, we impose security measures at home. Half wars like Viet-Nam, Desert Storm, temporary occupations, counter insurgencies from a distance, and avoidence of collateral damage, don't seem to stop determined adversaries. Crush them totally in the first instance, rather than imposing bunker mentality regulations on our own people. The Afghanistan war should have been a quick and massive destruction with the understood and expressed threat that this is what you will get if you harbor those that kill us.


I see a lot of things that scare me out there, most of them economic in nature, because I'm a numbers guy. But not many safety measures that are part of the war on terror, worry me. I only worry that we aren't going far enough in the name of political correctness.

When you give government power over you for safety, you might be a bit safer in one way (debatable), but in danger of forfeiting your sovereignty in another. Was it Franklin that said something to the effect that those who give up liberty for security and comfort deserve neither (or will lose both?).

I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that most of those 18-26 year olds would prefer a job to a free ride on their parents health insurance policy and a room in their basement :uhuh:
Luckily, pretty soon after we got the current president, we stopped purging jobs. I know, don't blame Bush :love:

" For each job the private sector cut under George W. Bush, the private sector gained~0.09 jobs under Barack Obama (if one attributes January 2009′s job losses to Obama, the private sector eliminated ~5 jobs for every job it created under Bush). The economy would need to destroy 701,000 private sector jobs for Bush to break even with Obama (not accounting for the 125,000 jobs that the economy must create each month just to keep pace with population growth)."

Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (May 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/06/01/bush-vs-obama-unemployment-may-2012-jobs-data/)

Luckily, pretty soon after we got the current president, we stopped purging jobs. I know, don't blame Bush :love:

" For each job the private sector cut under George W. Bush, the private sector gained~0.09 jobs under Barack Obama (if one attributes January 2009′s job losses to Obama, the private sector eliminated ~5 jobs for every job it created under Bush). The economy would need to destroy 701,000 private sector jobs for Bush to break even with Obama (not accounting for the 125,000 jobs that the economy must create each month just to keep pace with population growth)."

Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (May 2012 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican (http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2012/06/01/bush-vs-obama-unemployment-may-2012-jobs-data/)

I hope he tries to run on that too :uhuh:

Obama’s remarks on worst job growth: Did he end it or should he own it? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-remarks-on-worst-job-growth-did-he-end-it-or-should-he-own-it/2012/05/18/gIQAkDKCZU_blog.html)

The Pinocchio Test


There’s no doubt that Bush owns an unimpressive record on job creation. But Obama comes in either last, second-to-last or in the bottom half among presidents since the Great Depression, depending on which way you look at the numbers. considering all of the money he spent saving and creating jobs..you'd think he'd have better results :)

The president said that policies from 2000 through 2008 produced the “most sluggish job growth we’ve ever seen.” Perhaps so, but the worst numbers on record occurred under his watch.

Obama chose a poor metric for measuring past administrations. To make his point with jobs data, he has to point to his own numbers and completely disavow much of them, or else ignore public-sector losses. We came close to thinking this was worth Three Pinocchios, but ultimately decided he was not necessarily including his record in the statement oh....just give him 4 he's earned it . Still, it’s a very fine line. The president should be much more careful about making such a sweeping claim.

Three pages and I have a headache - time to roll a new thread