What has Obama done that has improved economic conditions, making things better

[Boo Radley]

Jon stewart and Mick Foley ?

Yep. A point is made in a rather humorous way.

 

[Donc]

No worries. I love a good argument, especially when the other party to the debate keeps on hangin' the curveballs out over the plate like that. It's good mental exercise. The fact that Cons seems to be a living breathing GOP talking point paper is good practice for those that aren't. Just as when you master a Rubik's cube, I'm sure I'll tire of the diversion eventually, but until that point I enjoy the exercise. Besides, I got nothin' better to do. 'Cept walk down to the mailbox and collect my gubmint check and make sure my foodstamp card got reloaded...

Lotsa luck with explaining (attempting?:shock that the Social Security Reform Act of 1983 wasn’t a tax increase. Or when the gipper signed the $37.5 billion “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act” in 1982,that it wasn’t a tax increase, because…well, they were called the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act” Social Security Reform Act of 1983 /, therefore it/they weren’t tax increases. :2wave:

 

[prrriiide]

Obviously this is going to take some time to respond to each item given so I will do that in time but just a couple sites for you to research and refute.

Don't waste your time. You do not debate in good faith and are either too obstinate or too stupid to see that some of the figures I gave you are from the very site you linked. I had hoped that a reasoned and supported argument (you know, like you are always whining and begging for) showing you how your tin god Reagan did many of the very things for which you eviscerate Obama would get you to see that Obama, while far from perfect, is not the anti-christ you make him out to be. You do not bring healthy discussion or intellectually honest debate to this forum. Were I a moderator here, you would be banned. Not for any single post, but for the vacuousness of your body of work.

[iggy]

Ahhhh...much better. Like baby powder on a chafed crotch.

 

[Compatibilist]

Don't waste your time. You do not debate in good faith and are either too obstinate or too stupid to see that some of the figures I gave you are from the very site you linked. I had hoped that a reasoned and supported argument (you know, like you are always whining and begging for) showing you how your tin god Reagan did many of the very things for which you eviscerate Obama would get you to see that Obama, while far from perfect, is not the anti-christ you make him out to be. You do not bring healthy discussion or intellectually honest debate to this forum. Were I a moderator here, you would be banned. Not for any single post, but for the vacuousness of your body of work.

[iggy]

Ahhhh...much better. Like baby powder on a chafed crotch.

Yea lets ban everyone who doesn't "reason and support their argument" according to your standards. Then we can also delete all posts/topics that don't meet your opinion of whats a " healthy discussion or intellectually honest debate". Then we can start looking at online books, blogs... etc that prrriiide doesn't like and remove them too?? I suspect if someone wanted to take the time to look over your reasoned arguments here... they might not be a reasoned as YOU think they are... and might advocate your ejection. But then again... thats what the mods are here for and most likely why you will never be one.

 

[ptif219]

Yep. A point is made in a rather humorous way.

No a point is made by two guys I would not believe no matter what they said.

 

[prrriiide]

Yea lets ban everyone who doesn't "reason and support their argument" according to your standards. Then we can also delete all posts/topics that don't meet your opinion of whats a " healthy discussion or intellectually honest debate". Then we can start looking at online books, blogs... etc that prrriiide doesn't like and remove them too?? I suspect if someone wanted to take the time to look over your reasoned arguments here... they might not be a reasoned as YOU think they are... and might advocate your ejection. But then again... thats what the mods are here for and most likely why you will never be one.

You got it backwards, man. Conservative has no interest whatsoever in the reasoned exchange of ideas. His only interest is to cast aspersions. He is a rabid idealogue and anyone who doesn't see the world as he does is fair game for as many ad hominems as he can muster. He is the personification of everything that is wrong with the political debate in our country. My assumption was that this forum was dedicated to the free exchange of ideas and honest, open-minded political debate. That is the opposite of what Conservative does. Now, if my assumption was wrong, tell me. I have better things to do than participate in idealogical masturbation.

 

[jujuman13]

Actually:


As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.

Obama’s message? Not anymore.

"That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."



Read More Obama: No More War Spending Tricks | Danger Room | Wired.com

Sleight-of-hand accounting practices since 2001 put the US on this course. Between the supplemental "war" budget requests, the deficit spending of two "wars" (and you can't blame this increase on personnel costs - the one cost Rummy didn't back), the outrageous military R&D costs that have yielded little or nothing in return, the black ops programs, the cost of running an entire separate prison system to avoid US law, the expansion of the Medicare drug program, and the tax breaks have given the world a new meaning to the cry "CHAARGE!" Just like too many US civilians used their homes as charge cards, the current administration ran up a humongous tab that will take several future generations to pay. Attempts by the Blue Dogs to turn around this avalanche spending spree for "Daddy's War" and address the losses in veteran's healthcare, Medicare, and education were rebuffed at every turn by Shrub and his party.

Budget analyst: Recent funding approach masks true costs of war (12/15/08) -- GovExec.com

Online NewsHour: Analysis | Bush Unveils Budget Proposal | February 5, 2007 | PBS

What have we learned in 2,064 years?



"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.


People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."


Cicero
55 BC



Evidently, nothing

 

[Conservative]

Lotsa luck with explaining (attempting?:shock that the Social Security Reform Act of 1983 wasn’t a tax increase. Or when the gipper signed the $37.5 billion “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act” in 1982,that it wasn’t a tax increase, because…well, they were called the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act” Social Security Reform Act of 1983 /, therefore it/they weren’t tax increases. :2wave:

Do you understand SS and its purpose? Compare SS to Income taxes. I continue to be amazed at people like you who doesn't understand that you are going to get SS, maybe, when you retire and since LBJ put SS on budget and it has been spent, i.e. Clinton surplus was SS related, it was going broke in the 80's and needed the increase so that you can get your SS some day. How much extra are you sending to the govt. because you seem to care more about what they collect than what you get to keep?

 

[Conservative]

Don't waste your time. You do not debate in good faith and are either too obstinate or too stupid to see that some of the figures I gave you are from the very site you linked. I had hoped that a reasoned and supported argument (you know, like you are always whining and begging for) showing you how your tin god Reagan did many of the very things for which you eviscerate Obama would get you to see that Obama, while far from perfect, is not the anti-christ you make him out to be. You do not bring healthy discussion or intellectually honest debate to this forum. Were I a moderator here, you would be banned. Not for any single post, but for the vacuousness of your body of work.

[iggy]

Ahhhh...much better. Like baby powder on a chafed crotch.

It really is hard dealing with Obama supporters who buy the rhetoric and ignore substance. I will respond to your post because you are so off based and totally ignorant of reality, probably another young kid that wasn't around during the Reagan term. I know this is extremely hard for you to understand but since the U.S. economy is 66% consumer driven, income tax cuts benefit the consumer and creates jobs. Being intellectually dishonest seems to be Obama supporters who ignore he was in Congress, voted for the Bush spending, and has now put Bush spending on steroids. He added 3 trillion to the debt and has 16 million unemployed, brilliant economic plan that he blames on Bush yet Democrats controlled the legislative proces. Anyone that supports Obama doesn't have a lot of credibility today.

Reagan 1.7 trillion debt in 8 years
Bush 5.0 trillion debt in 8 years
Obama 3.0 trillion in 2 years.

Neither Bush or Reagan had 16 million unemployed or trillion dollar deficits. He is "your" President, live with the mess he is creating.

 

[Conservative]

You got it backwards, man. Conservative has no interest whatsoever in the reasoned exchange of ideas. His only interest is to cast aspersions. He is a rabid idealogue and anyone who doesn't see the world as he does is fair game for as many ad hominems as he can muster. He is the personification of everything that is wrong with the political debate in our country. My assumption was that this forum was dedicated to the free exchange of ideas and honest, open-minded political debate. That is the opposite of what Conservative does. Now, if my assumption was wrong, tell me. I have better things to do than participate in idealogical masturbation.

Why don't you address your concerns to me instead of talking about me? I have no problem exchanging ideas with anyone but the problem is you and others cannot even be honest as to who you are. There is nothing moderate about anyone that supports Barack Obama. You are a liberal and as a liberal have no new ideas at all. It is all liberal arrogance and insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Spend, spend, spend and while doing it create dependence, victims, and puppets like you.

What I do is post bea.gov, bls.gov, and U.S. Treasury data. I then back that data up with logic and common sense applying both to the foundation upon which this country was built, free enterprise, capitalism, and individual wealth creation. For years it was personal responsibility and consequences for poor choices made until people like you supported the creation of the entitlement state. Now there is no such thing as personal responsibility and certainly no consequences for failure. Fail and the taxpayer will bail you out at the direction of the Federal Govt.

I don't know what is wrong with people like you and how our education system got so screwed up that we have people like you who paid no attention to the Obama resume, were so brainwashed by the rhetoric, and now continue to defend him when his actions resemble that resume, no leadership skills, no executive experience, poor selection of people in his Administration, devisive rhetoric, and zero positive results in 18 months in office. He does blame everyone else well but Management 101 teaches anyone who takes the course that you cannot delegate responsibility. Obama does that at every turn and blames everyone else for his poor decision making process. You can delegate authority but NOT responsibility, never. Obama and his supporters never will understand that.

 

[Conservative]

=prrriiide;1058883097]Taxes, schmaxes.

You can't cut taxes without cutting spending. Period. The GOP has not cut spending. See my sig. How has borrowing trillions of dollars from China made us more secure? ANSWER: It hasn't. Bush paid for his wars by borrowing money from China. IMO, being completely beholden to China is FAR more dangerous to the US than any terrorist attack.

What does cutting taxes have to do with spending since bea.gov shows that income tax and corporate taxes doubled during the Reagan years. You do understand income taxes and corporate taxes right? Since govt. tax revenue grew

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Only in the liberal world does giving the govt. more money mean that they have to spend it. Why is it you have such a problem spending your own money and why do you believe the govt. needs the money more than you or your local community. Apparently a bureaucrat in D.C. is better prepared to handle local charitable giving, right?

The economy did just fine with the Clinton tax rates, thank you very much.

Really? Notice what happened after the Clinton retroactive tax increase in 1993 to economic growth. Seems that bea.gov disagrees with your statement

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

ALSO...you said:

Take off the partisan glasses for a minute and admit it: the GOP congress from 2000-2006 did just as much if not more to send us down our rosy road as the Dem congress of 2006-present. As did Bush. In fact, the real growth rate of non-defense and non-homeland security spending under Bush was more than the 3 previous Presidents COMBINED. LINK

Actually you can use the same link for economic growth during 2000 which of course was Clinton's last year in office, 2001 which had 9/11, and then the Bush tax cuts which went into effect in July 2003. Using BEA.gov you will find that in 2000 the GDP of the country was 9.9 trillion dollars and when Bush left office it was 14.4 trillion dollars, a 4.5 trillion increase with 9/11 and a recession in 2000-2001 and again in 2008. Not bad economic growth which of course you ignore.

I have been a strong supporter of Obama. The simple reason is that I watched as the GOP congress followed their pied piper down an unsustainable road. I am not happy that he hasn't been able to deliver on his words. However, I am also cognizant of the fact that it is entirely in the GOP's best interests to keep the economy in the tank until November 3rd. In addition, I am also cognizant of the fact that the GOP congress passed some of the biggest budget-busting bills in history including the MediCare Prescription Plan (only 9 of 47 GOP Senators present voted no).

What you did is ignore the Obama resume to buy the hope and change message. What exactly did that message mean to you?

So the GOP is keeping the economy in the tank so they can take control in November? Where do you get this stuff? The GOP cannot stop Obama legislation including the trillion dollar stimulus plan which stimulated nothing but propping up Democratic Constituent groups. It is the results that are going to create a change in Congress, not the GOP. The American people are waking up and when they see 16 million unemployed Americans, 3 trillion added to the debt, a healthcare bill that destroys jobs they aren't blaming Republicans nor show they. The fact is "your" empty suit President is living up to his resume which showed no leadership skills at all, poor judgment, and a divisive character. The bloom is off the rose but for many of us it was never on the rose. He was the most inexperience person ever to hold the oval office.

I am not even going to dignify your Medicare comments with a response because you don't even know what that bill was and what it has ended up costing. Go to the U.S. Treasury website and find out exactly what that bill cost and when it went into effect. MediaMatters, MoveOn, Huffington Post, Americans for Progress aren't credible sites. Get the facts and realize that this country wasn't built on the principles of Obama, our campaigner in chief.

To imply that the previous GOP congress and President had nothing to do with the current state of our economy and that the Democrats are singulary responsible is, frankly, partisan bullcrap. Both parties have failed us. I am still firmly in the camp that believes that the GOP's failure is more onerous, simply because they preached beforehand that they were the party of fiscal responsibility. Now, after a drunken frat-party of a spending spree from 2001-2006, they have the temerity to pretend that they are still the party of fiscal responsibility. I feel like the little kid pointing out that the emporer is nekkid. Every time I hear the hypocrite McConnel on television, I have to remind myself that new TV's are expensive.

I never have even implied that the GOP Congress and President Bush had nothing to do with the current economy but it wasn't the GOP Congress in January 2007 controlling the legislative process and in charge in December 2007 when the recession began. Only a liberal would make the point that the GOP Congress prior to 2007 spent to much yet condone Obama who put Bush spending on steroids. I will remind you that Bush largest deficits were less than half of Obama's deficits. Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit but Obama now has two.

Now, with that out of the way, to your OP:

What has Obama done?

You said:

Really? He appropriated that money all by his lonesome? There wasn't a congressional vote involved? 33 of the 74 aye votes in the Senate came from GOP Senators. 90 of the 263 ayes in the House were from GOP Reps. He didn't do it as President. The votes that appriopriated TARP took place on Oct. 1 & 3 of 2008 - a full month before Obama stomped McCain's face into the curb. Bush signed the bill the afternoon of the 4th in the Oval Office. See? Here's a picture:

That's exactly what private-sector investors do all the time. The pump money into a company, then they get to run it. If tax dollars are used to prop up a faltering industry, then I expect that the taxpayers will get a return on investment. Is your position that Obama should have let GM/Chrysler fail? Or is it that he should have just thrown more money at them with no strings, as Bush/Paulson did for their Wall St. cronies? I say more money, because the FIRST round of auto bailouts came from Bush on Dec. 19th; again, a full month before Obama took office.

Again, you miss the point, it was Obama that claimed he inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. That is an absolute lie since deficits are yearly and the fiscal year of the U.S. Govt runs from Oct-September so fiscal year 2009 ran from October 2008-Sept. 2009 and Obama took office in January. The fact is Bush lobbied for and signed the 700 billion dollar TARP bill which Obama voted for. Bush spent 350 billion and left the other 350 billion for Obama. Most of TARP has been paid back except of course the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which are still billions in debt yet for some reason were left out of the financial reform bill that Obama just signed but I digress.

Fact is the no President creates any deficit or debt alone and to blame Bush for a 1.3 trillion deficit is a lie that many bought since Congress under Democrat control authorized that spending and Obama from January 2009 helped created the 1.3 trillion deficit that he claims Bush left him. think about it, Bush in office October 2008 to January 2009 and created a 1.3 trillion deficit in that time frame? Are you really that dense?

By the way I did not support TARP but understand it. I did not support the attempted bailout of GM/Chrysler and then the Obama takeover. Let companies fail as that creates opportunities for others to take over.

A stimulus plan that every single economist I heard and read said was an absolute necessity. Most of them said it wasn't enough.

I could go on as well, but I think I've made my point. Every statement that you have made about Obama has its roots in the GOP congress and Bush White house of the first 8 years of the decade. Obama was handed a **** sandwich, and you are demanding he turn it into prime rib. It didn't take us two years to get into this mess, and demanding it be fixed in such a short time screams of the MTV, I want it now mentality that pervades our society.

The stimulus plan that was supposed to pump 862 billion into the economy has only been half spent and has done nothing to stimulate the economy as evidenced by the results. it was a waste of money and it is the results that the American people are seeing that is leading to the Democrat loss of support and it is the results that you want to ignore.

One last thing: all I hear from the GOP is why the Democrat/Obama plans are bad. I don't see their plans at all. There are precious few GOP congressmen that are offering up real, grown-up solutions. Cutting taxes isn't an option: you don't take a pay cut when you're two months late on your mortgage and your credit cards are in collections. I can't hear the GOP because I've tuned out their broken record. Until they put a new single on the album, it's just the same old tired old same old.

Since the Democrats control the legislative branch how would you know what the GOP has proposed. Paul Ryan has put forth an excellent plan to turn this economy around but as you indicated you haven't heard anything about it, the question is why. Read it and get back to me

A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

Now I will take your next post apart but probably tomorrow. I do appreciate your attempt to engage in debate but your facts are flawed if not absolutely false as are most of them in the next post as you will understand when I get through with it.

Now I wonder if I will get a big thank you from Donc, LOL

 

[Donc]

Do you understand SS and its purpose? Compare SS to Income taxes. I continue to be amazed at people like you who doesn't understand that you are going to get SS, maybe, when you retire and since LBJ put SS on budget and it has been spent, i.e. Clinton surplus was SS related, it was going broke in the 80's and needed the increase so that you can get your SS some day. How much extra are you sending to the govt. because you seem to care more about what they collect than what you get to keep?

Ah this is rich, conservative whining all over DP about Obama not extending the bush tax-cuts for the top 1%(which tanked the economy) and here he is so concerned about us old farts getting our Social Security. :lol:

I notice you didn’t respond to the largest peacetime tax increase up to that time in American history. Wonder why?:roll:

This just shows what hypocrites the repubs are. Clinton raised taxes, and the repug noise machine sent out talking points hither and yawn saying that will surely make this a third world country …if were lucky.

The same noise machine was saying, is still saying that(check some of conservatives post )the bush tax cuts is the best thing for this debt ridden economy.Hhhmm…who was the oracle that said something about voodoo economics?

 

[Conservative]

donc;1058886827]Ah this is rich, conservative whining all over DP about Obama not extending the bush tax-cuts for the top 1%(which tanked the economy) and here he is so concerned about us old farts getting our Social Security. :lol:

Donc, you don't get it and never will. Your class warfare support and total ignorance when it comes to who pays taxes is staggering. When the Bush tax cuts expire ALL TAXPAYERS get an increase, ALL OF THEM not just the rich.

I would love for you to explain how allowing people to keep more of what they earn "tanked" the economy. Your economic ignorance is also staggering. Allowing even you to keep more of what you earn cannot tank an economy unless it is a totally socialist economy like you apparenlty want and Obama is trying to deliver. Apparently you don't work, don't pay taxes, thus don't have a problem with others supporting you.

I notice you didn’t respond to the largest peacetime tax increase up to that time in American history. Wonder why?:roll:

Pay attention, I am responding, but it takes time to respond to the book that was written, a book filled with lies and distortions. I wonder why people like you have such a problem keeping more of what you earn? Explain that to me and then tell me why we need a 3.8 trillion dollar federal budget? You seem outraged over what you perceive as private sector greed that you ignore the true greed, an out of control Federal Govt led by that empty suit you helped elect.

This just shows what hypocrites the repubs are. Clinton raised taxes, and the repug noise machine sent out talking points hither and yawn saying that will surely make this a third world country …if were lucky.

Clinton raised taxes and took economic growth down and led to the election of a GOP Congress that repealed many of those taxes. That was the Clinton economic plan, penalize the American taxpayer and lose Congress.

The same noise machine was saying, is still saying that(check some of conservatives post )the bush tax cuts is the best thing for this debt ridden economy.Hhhmm…who was the oracle that said something about voodoo economics?

I anxiously await your reason for American people not keeping more of our money. It is our money first, not the governments. Any time the American consumer gets to keep more of their money it is a good thing. Only a true brainwashed liberal can complain about the govt. not getting their "fair share" of the hard earned money of the American taxpayer and it is left to liberals to define that fair share.

I don't understand people like you and probably never will. the education system in this country is in a real mess if there a millions of people like you who believe the Govt. needs the money more than the American consumer and that tax increases create incentive for the taxpayer to spend more money. Do you realize how stupid that sounds and is?

 

[Boo Radley]

What have we learned in 2,064 years?



"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.


People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."


Cicero
55 BC



Evidently, nothing

Not sure of your point in addressing this to me, but this is a old problem, not new with Obama. Deficit spending didn't start here, and it is not the first time such has been used during a downturn.

 

[Donc]

Conservative;

Donc, you don't get it and never will. When the Bush tax cuts expire ALL TAXPAYERS get an increase, ALL OF THEM not just the rich.

I would love for you to explain how allowing people to keep more of what they earn "tanked" the economy.

The is pretty simple(even a truckdriver can figure this one out ) the bush tax-cuts took a couple of trillion out of an economy that was/is fighting two wars. According to a congressional committee, in 2009 the cost was $1.6 trillion. :shock:

Pay attention, I am responding, but it takes time to respond to the book that was written, a book filled with lies and distortions. I wonder why people like you have such a problem keeping more of what you earn? Explain that to me and then tell me why we need a 3.8 trillion dollar federal budget? You seem outraged over what you perceive as private sector greed that you ignore the true greed, an out of control Federal Govt led by that empty suit you helped elect.

Nothing here, again ….moven on down the road. :roll:

Clinton raised taxes and took economic growth down and led to the election of a GOP Congress that repealed many of those taxes. That was the Clinton economic plan, penalize the American taxpayer and lose Congress.

Nah,your posting more of your bull**** and hoping no one will check it out.According to what I have seen the average growth in GDP was 3.875%.Better check your favorite source again, this time don’t stop at the first year. :2wave:

I anxiously await your reason for American people not keeping more of our money. It is our money first, not the governments. Any time the American consumer gets to keep more of their money it is a good thing.

Its still pretty simple. Since bush cut the taxes, this year, (the year the tax cuts are fully kicked in) half of the population will see an average of a $600 cut.

Now lets take a peek at the top one percent. In 2010, with everything kicking in that number jumps to a whopping $92,000 .Now where did that money come from for the last eight years?:shock:

 

[obvious Child]

Yea lets ban everyone who doesn't "reason and support their argument" according to your standards.

One must wonder if you even bothered to read Conservative's various posts. He doesn't support anything he says and when people start using his own posted sources to refute his argument, he flies off the handle.

Perhaps you should first inform yourself a to the content of character of the person you are defending before putting your neck out on the line for them?

After all, Conservative did explicitly state he did not care about the sole method of proving his arguments.

 

[Conservative]

=donc;1058886965]The is pretty simple(even a truckdriver can figure this one out ) the bush tax-cuts took a couple of trillion out of an economy that was/is fighting two wars. According to a congressional committee, in 2009 the cost was $1.6 trillion. :shock:

How typical of a liberal, apply the old tax rates to fewer numbers of taxpayers and you get less revenue while ignoring that Obama has added to the reduction in number of taxpayers. Bush wasn't in office in 2009

Nothing here, again ….moven on down the road. :roll:


Nah,your posting more of your bull**** and hoping no one will check it out.According to what I have seen the average growth in GDP was 3.875%.Better check your favorite source again, this time don’t stop at the first year. :2wave:

According to what you have seen? I posted the link, learn to read it. When did the GOP take over Congress?

Its still pretty simple. Since bush cut the taxes, this year, (the year the tax cuts are fully kicked in) half of the population will see an average of a $600 cut.

Now lets take a peek at the top one percent. In 2010, with everything kicking in that number jumps to a whopping $92,000 .Now where did that money come from for the last eight years?:shock

I cannot believe that someone can be this dense and totally ignores the fact that govt. revenue for income taxes went up AFTER the tax cuts yet calls that deficit spending. Still waiting for what Obama has done to make our economy better and our country stronger? You want so badly to believe what you are told that you ignore anything that proves you wrong. You have no basic economic understanding and are one of the very few in this country that spends more money when your taxes go up. You are either one rich liberal or someone who doesn't pay taxes and lives off the taxpayer. Which is it?

By the way, things are much, much better, aren't they?

U.S. economy grows at 2.4 percent pace in second quarter, weakest growth in nearly a year


Go to FoxNews.com for the latest on this developing story:
http://email.foxnews.com/t?ctl=5128:2BA08D5FBD974F9391CBE9CA641CCBDB&

 

[Conservative]

One must wonder if you even bothered to read Conservative's various posts. He doesn't support anything he says and when people start using his own posted sources to refute his argument, he flies off the handle.

Perhaps you should first inform yourself a to the content of character of the person you are defending before putting your neck out on the line for them?

After all, Conservative did explicitly state he did not care about the sole method of proving his arguments.

Interesting video, pay attention and then probably carry on with your discussion with yourself that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This video has everything to do with that topic and what Obama is doing.

YouTube - We The People

 

[Conservative]

Now let's start the response to "the rest of the story"

Do you REALLY believe that??? If so, then you have swallowed a big ol' fat worm on a hook. Yes, Reagan enacted what was then the largest tax cut in American history in 1981. But that's where the righties always stop, and it's revisionist history. Reagan raised taxes FAR more often than he cut them. He didn't always instigate or agree with the increases, but he did sign off on them.

So tell me when you get an income tax cut of 25% over 3 years did SS tax increases offset that reduction? Also tell me what happens when you get to keep more of what you earn and what affect does that have on the economy.

What you continue to ignore from the link that I posted is that FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE GREW AFTER THE TAX CUTS. Nothing you have posted refutes that nor can you explain it.

FACT: Tax increase #1: In 1982, seeing that the massive tax cuts were not sustainable in the face of spiraling deficits (up 189% at the end of his administration) and a deepening recession, Reagan signed legislation rolling back roughly 1/3 of those cuts. This $100B tax hike was the largest since WWII at the time. Tax increase #2: 1983 - raised the gasoline tax. Tax increase #3: 1984 - closed loopholes that increased taxes by $50B on businesses. Tax increase #4: the 1986 Tax Reform Act. It did lower individual income taxes. BUT...the act increased corporate taxes by $120B over 5 years, and raised an additional $300B by closing corporate loopholes. $420B in new taxes for corporations over 5 years ain't chump change, either. Not in 1986 dollars. Here's a good one: Conservatives bemoan the fact that many people below a certain income pay NO federal income tax, yet receive a "disproportionate" amount of Federal aid. Guess what? Reagan performed that apostasy in the 1986 TRA. Another part of the act: the Earned Income Tax Credit (first passed in 1975) had diminished to insignificance by 1986. TRA greatly expanded it. Yet another victory for fiscal liberals courtesy of Reagan. So popular was it with liberals that Clinton expanded it again during his Presidency.

I love how liberals again ignore basic civics, Reagan took office in January 1981 and didn’t get his tax cuts passed until August 1981 which was at the end if fiscal year 1981. Fiscal year 1982 began in October and the first 10% tax cut was just kicking in, effects didn’t start improving until mid 1982 after coming off a 20+ Misery index of high inflation and high unemployment. There therefore was no unsustainable tax cuts determined in 1982 thus none were rolled back and obviously you don’t understand taxes at all especially those passed by Reagan, Income taxes and Corporate taxes.

Obviously you also don’t understand gasoline taxes so let me help you, Gasoline taxes are excise taxes collected on each gallon of gasoline you buy. Those taxes were targeted for highway and bridge construction. That is how the interstate highway system was built. Reagan didn’t increase excise taxes on people to add to the generate revenue account and those taxes were only paid by people who drove vehicles. In addition excise tax increases have no bearing at all on the FACT that INCOME TAX revenue grew AFTER the tax reductions. How did that happen?
As for corporate taxes, those taxes obviously didn’t affect hiring as almost 20 million jobs were created by the economy, people had more spendable income

Now as for corporations I continue to be amazed that a true liberal like you would worry about what those evil corporations are paying in taxes. Not sure you really have a clue or thought this through. I would love to explain those taxes to you but obviously that would be a waste of time. What I pointed out was that Income tax revenue doubled in the 80’s under Reagan AFTER his income tax cut and your problem is you cannot explain why nor can you explain why Reagan won a landslide losing only one state in 1984.

It also should be known that Reagan compromised with the Democrats in Congress when he agreed to tax hikes for spending cuts. Obviously he learned you don’t compromise with a liberal. He did the same thing with amnesty for illegal’s in 1986 when he agreed to grant amnesty in exchange for border control. What we ended up with millions of illegal’s becoming citizens and the borders remaining a sieve

The idea is that tax revenue increases due to tax cuts. This is a complete fallacy. It is a natural cycle that is tied directly to the recession/boom cycle. Of COURSE receipts went up when Reagan took office: we were coming out of a deep recession. When Bush 2 came into office, it was on the heels of the .com bust and soon after we had 9/11. Bush's first tax cuts were enacted in June of 2001, retroactive to the beginning of the year. The tax cuts were in place in 2002. Why, then did gross federal receipts DROP by nearly $200B in 2002? If tax cuts INCREASE tax receipts, why the decrease? The answer: we had a brief recession as a result of the 9/11 attacks, and the .com bust in march of 2000. When there is a recession, tax receipts go down. Fewer people have jobs, companies aren't investing as much, the economy just slows. And tax receipts are integrally linked with economic performance. All recessions since the Great Depression have been marked by a either a decrease or a nearly flat growth rate soon after in tax receipts. As soon as the recovery comes around and people and companies start spending again, the tax receipts go back up. It should also be noted that despite the “disastrously” high Clinton tax rates, tax receipts never dropped during his Presidency. NOT ONCE. Please reconcile that fact and the 2002 receipts drop with the Conservative claim that lowering taxes increases revenue. Bush lowered taxes, and receipts and revenue DROPPED.

Hardly a fallacy at all as I pointed out in the link I posted. There are four components to GDP, please name them and tell me what percentage each contributes to GDP. Then you will understand how tax cuts affect GDP

As for the Bush tax cuts they were similar in the beginning to Obama’s, rebates and we all know that once a rebate check is spent it is gone. The real tax cuts went into effect in 2003, July, when the rates were cut meaning that even you got a bigger paycheck. That is when Revenue started to really grow because that is when jobs were created.

Now here is what the American people got in the Obama so called tax cuts

Tax cuts

Total: $288 billion

Tax cuts for individuals

Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

Did your take home pay go up? Only a liberal ignores the massive govt. needed to implement these so called tax cuts and how little that impacted the American consumer

More later

 

[Compatibilist]

One must wonder if you even bothered to read Conservative's various posts. He doesn't support anything he says and when people start using his own posted sources to refute his argument, he flies off the handle.

Perhaps you should first inform yourself a to the content of character of the person you are defending before putting your neck out on the line for them?

After all, Conservative did explicitly state he did not care about the sole method of proving his arguments.

It doesn't matter what his previous posts say or your opinion of the "content of his character" as long as he is in compliance with the forum rules. I'm defending his [and your] right to express thoughts/ideas without censorship. It's irrelevant how he reaches his conclusions... he still has a right to speak them. This is typical of many liberals who want to silence others who are critical or disagree. You have good leadership precident for that since Obama would like nothing better then to ban Fox News.

 

[Conservative]

Continuation

I don’t see anything in ANY of the tables that supports your statement. Although there were ups and downs in the period, the average GDP increase for the 8 years was 3.875%. In that period real GDP increased $2,702.6B, or $2.7T. Contrast that with the Bush administration: a total increase of $1965B, or just under $2T. Looks to me like the Clinton economic plan outperformed the Bush plan. Figures are constant 2005 dollars.

The GDP grew from 9.9 trillion the end of the Clinton term to 14.4 trillion at the end of the Bush term. Clinton didn’t have a recession in his economic numbers but Bush had two. You can focus on percentage increase but I prefer a discussion of dollars specially since there was basically no inflation. What did your take home pay do during the same period of time

You’re saying there was no GOP congress from 2000-2006??? Trent Lott and Bill Frist were figments of my imagination? Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert never occupied the dais? And you’re right. Bush didn’t act alone. I never said he did. However, it wasn’t until the Democrats held the majority in 2006 that Bush blew the dust off of that box in the back of his bottom drawer and found his veto stamp. Your own source, bea.gov, puts lie to your statement regarding Bush. The 2008 total was a $3.73 trillion deficit. For ONE year.

Trent Lott created a power sharing agreement with the Democrats because the Republicans controlled the Senate? Hmmm, interesting, the Senate was equally divided from 2001-2003.

Congress Years Total Dems Reps Others Vacant Total Dems Reps Others
107th 2001–2003 100 50 50 — — 435 212 221 2 —
108th 2003–2005 100 48 51 1 — 435 205 229 1 —
109th 2005–2007 100 44 55 1 — 435 202 231 1 1
110th 2007–2009 100 49 49 2 — 435 233 198 — 4
111th 2009–2011 100 57 41 2 2 435 256 178 — 1

3.73 trillion deficit? Do you know how to read bea.gov? That might be one of the dumbest statements anyone in DP has made and it a total and complete lie.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Also a very interesting statistic for someone who claims they care about the deficit and always loves to point out percentages. Note the debt as a percentage of GDP

Year GDP Debt % of GDP

2001 10286.2 -1.25 a
2002 10642.3 1.48 a
2003 11142.1 3.39 a
2004 11867.8 3.48 a
2005 12638.4 2.52 a
2006 13398.9 1.85 a
2007 14077.6 1.14 a
2008 14441.4 3.18 a
2009 14258.2 9.91 a
2010 14623.9 10.64

 

[Conservative]

Finally and to fulfill my promise

Your statement regarding a filibuster-proof majority is misleading. The 111th Senate had a filibuster-proof majority in favor of the Democrats from July 7th, 2009 to August 25th of 2009, and again from September 25th of 2009 to February 4th of 2010. About 6 months of the year. In that time, the following legislation was passed in the Senate along strictly party lines, with NO Republican aye votes:

S Amdt 3276 Senate Health Care Bill Amendments - Amendment Adopted-Senate (60 - 39) 12/22/2009
HR 3590 Health Care and Insurance Law Amendments - Cloture Invoked-Senate (60 - 39) 12/23/2009
HR 4314 Increasing the National Public Debt Limit - Bill Passed-Senate (60 - 39) 12/24/2009
HR 3590 Health Care and Insurance Law Amendments - Bill Passed-Senate (60 - 39) 12/24/2009
HJR 45 Increasing the Public Debt Limit and Reinstating PAYGO - Bill Passed-Senate(60 - 39) 01/28/2010

LINK

LINK

LINK

This is the largest expansion of MediCare since its inception in 1965.

You can read what the New England Journal of Medicine has to say about it here.

So finally we get back to the thread topic. What affect did those bills have on unemployment and the national debt? Seems to me that the facts indicate the majority in the GOP were right. Interesting that GDP this year is lower than last year and that 3 trillion has been added to the debt and almost 4 million added to the roles of the unemployed. Those are the results you tout?

As for Medicare expansion
As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517 [17], making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 (billions) of the 390.7 billion Medicare expense.

Medicare 430.1 390.7 375.4 330.0 298.6

Now although an increase in a 3.8 trillion dollar budget I find it interesting that you focus on a 40 billion increase per year vs. the increase in other items in the budget and that is total Medicare Expense NOT ALL ATTRIBUTED IF ANY TO the prescription drug program

I understand the nature of our economy just fine, thank you. The economics work like this: As a taxpayer, I am a stakeholder in our government. Just as with any private company, the leaders make financial decisions on behalf of the stakeholders. As a stakeholder, when the government invests money that I have invested via taxes, I expect a ROI commensurate with the level of investment. Quite often, private stakeholders accept items of value other than money – stock options, use of company property, and the like. In this case, the value is in keeping the private economy afloat – a task for which the private economy proved singularly unfit. Had the private economy been good stewards of the interests of their stakeholders, the government vis a vis Obama would not be in the position of having to protect the interests of the government’s stakeholders, that is, anyone that needs to use the economy for any reason. If the economy is broken or crashed, it is of no use to anyone. Am I satisfied with the ROI at the moment? No. But like any good investor, I understand that there are more often than not forces that act as pressures on any investment, and delay robust growth. We are still dealing with a fetid housing market. There is over $3 trillion worth of private investment capital sitting on the sidelines right now, because the private economy knows that as long as the housing crisis is still with us, there will be no certainty as to the strength and stamina of any recovery. That’s nearly 1/3 of 2009’s GDP sitting out the game waiting for the recovery. Without that money being injected into the economy, there will be no recovery. THAT is why the government has to step in and inject significant (some say ludicrous) amounts of cash into the economy. As has been exemplified throughout America’s history, when the private sector fails to self-regulate, the government is the haven of last resort.

What a bunch of hogwash! You don’t understand the nature of the economy for this economy isn’t a zero sum game. Rich people don’t get rich making someone else poor. What you and others ignore is the massive growth in the size of the Govt. You have a lot of outrage over what private sector businesses make but don’t seem to care about the 3.8 trillion dollar budget govt. we have and the massive dollars being spent over and above that budget.

You continue to buy what you are told by the Obama Administration. How do you know that this economic policy and not a pro private sector economic growth policy was successful in keeping us from a depression. What we do know is there are more unemployed today than prior to the Stimulus plan and what we also know is that 3 trillion has been added to the debt.

I have no problem with dollars being injected into the economy during a recession but those dollars that were injected were done to bailout out Democrat constituent groups.

No, the leaders of the private sector economy actively and complicitly acted in way that made the intervention of the government an absolute necessity.

With the help of Congress but what you ignore is 80% of that private sector economy is smaller businesses and got almost zero help from this Administration. If you were a small business today watching how much the govt. is spending and seeing a healthcare bill that has to be paid for and will raise taxes, would you be in the mood to grow your business with the tax uncertainty?

Again, I would direct your attention to the Government Current Receipts and Expenditures table linked above. Bush DID have a $3T deficit in 2008. Massage the numbers any way you want, but it’s still true that income less expenditures equals profit (loss).

I do indeed prefer non partisan sites like the checkbook of the United States as well as sites recording deficit and debt. My question is why don’t you? Why do you believe what you are told by Obama or his Administration but more importantly why do you believe we need a massive federal Govt. and one that is growing each and every year?

What would you have them do? Put their heads on their desks and take a nap while the economy runs at 100-mph off of the edge of the Grand Canyon?

What I would expect the Congress to do is to uphold the basic principles of the Constitution and our free enterprise and capitalistic economy. I don’t have a lot of use for many Republicans in Congress either but I do realize they beat the alternative and the results to date support my contention.

Maybe because pulling those funds out of the housing sector would precipitate a renewal of the mad dash for the cliff? Due to the nature and structure of the mortgage industry in America, Fannie and Freddie can’t recoup losses as fast as traditional banks or mortgage houses. And they had MASSIVE losses in the housing meltdown. And, since they are quasi-governmental entities, it isn’t like they’re trying to get out from under any government control like the automakers.

Massive losses by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were caused by packaged loans due to the subprime loan program which was created as part of the CRA passed by Carter. In the liberal world there apparently are no consequences for poor choices made. Cannot believe you continue to buy what you are told by Obama and his Administration. Let me state it one more time, “your” President is a failure.

 

[Conservative]

It doesn't matter what his previous posts say or your opinion of the "content of his character" as long as he is in compliance with the forum rules. I'm defending his [and your] right to express thoughts/ideas without censorship. It's irrelevant how he reaches his conclusions... he still has a right to speak them. This is typical of many liberals who want to silence others who are critical or disagree. You have good leadership precident for that since Obama would like nothing better then to ban Fox News.

this describes Obama quite well. Too bad the Obama cult will ignore it.

Obama Takes Illinois Mistakes Nationwide

 

[masonkiller]

What would you have him do?

The hard truth is that if Obama, Congress, and especially Ben Bernanke had just sat around and twiddled their thumbs this whole time, maybe go play a round of golf, the American economy would be doing so much better.

 

[obvious Child]

It doesn't matter what his previous posts say or your opinion of the "content of his character" as long as he is in compliance with the forum rules. I'm defending his [and your] right to express thoughts/ideas without censorship. It's irrelevant how he reaches his conclusions... he still has a right to speak them. This is typical of many liberals who want to silence others who are critical or disagree. You have good leadership precident for that since Obama would like nothing better then to ban Fox News.

But that does not disprove his posts are entirely worthless. It may not warrant a ban, but the rest of Prrriiide's post is dead on.