Obama General Discussion, vol. 3

[maycocksean]

Tax cuts are code for racism ("It's not 'spic' or '******' anymore. (Instead,) they say, 'Let's cut taxes." -- Charles Rangel 1994.

That one is ridiculous, I have to admit. How he jumped from tax cuts to racism is beyond me.

I could go on. The problem is liberals believe conservatives only win, not based on the strength of their arguments or accomplishments, but on code-words and dog-whistles.

Conservatives, however routinely make it clear that liberals win exclusively on the strengths of their arguments or accomplishments. If only we depraved liberals were as respectful of our opponents as the noble conservatives are. . . .

Come on, INDY.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Reforming Medicare is code for "throw granny off the cliff."

I could go on. The problem is liberals believe conservatives only win, not based on the strength of their arguments or accomplishments, but on code-words and dog-whistles.

And when Obama's healthcare plan came about, conservatives mentioned that meant Obama wanted to kill your grandmother with death panels .

Please, don't even begin to pretend your side doesn't do this very same thing.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I believe conservatives pander to their lowest common denominator's base fears, and it works wonderfully

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It does seem to work

They're just going to have a tougher time with terrorism, since the OBL and Khadafi stuff. Remember, Obama was supposed to be soft on all that stuff. Where there's a will there's a way I guess, just make shit up. Now the economy has obviously overtaken terrorism as the number one issue.

 

[anitram]

2011 GDP: 1.7%

The effects of the housing bubble and collapse (thank you Bush, Bernanke, Greenspan) are still weighing heavily on the economy.

Without passing the the payroll tax cut (thank you Obama), that growth you cite would have been even smaller.

But let's not let facts get in the way.

 

[financeguy]

Seconded. What Indy500 said.

 

[INDY500]

The effects of the housing bubble and collapse (thank you Bush, Bernanke, Greenspan) are still weighing heavily on the economy. But let's not let facts get in the way.

Speaking of facts; let's throw in that both Houses of Congress were under Democratic control at the time of the crisis (thank you Frank, Pelosi, Dodd and Reid)

Without passing the payroll tax cut (thank you Obama), that growth you cite would have been even smaller.

The GOP House passed a 1 year extension, the Senate and president wanted the current 2 month extension. But glad you now recognize that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. (thank you Bush tax cuts)

 

[PhilsFan]

But glad you now recognize that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. (thank you Bush tax cuts)

Those really worked out for us.

 

[BVS]

Speaking of facts; let's throw in that both Houses of Congress were under Democratic control at the time of the crisis (thank you Frank, Pelosi, Dodd and Reid)

Yep, we all know that economic crises happen in the moment.

The GOP House passed a 1 year extension, the Senate and president wanted the current 2 month extension. But glad you now recognize that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. (thank you Bush tax cuts)

We also know that tax cuts are long term stimulus.

 

[anitram]

The GOP House passed a 1 year extension, the Senate and president wanted the current 2 month extension. But glad you now recognize that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. (thank you Bush tax cuts)

I thought that you were better than discussing things from a completely disingenuous platform. I was wrong.

The Republicans in the Senate were not interested in negotiating with the Democrats or the President in any meaningful way, and that is why the stopgap measure was necessary - you couldn't get a year-long deal with these people. It was hailed as a major victory for the administration by pretty much everyone, including Republicans with egg on their face.

Since they insist on treating every issue like it is Obama's Waterloo, you can't work with them at all. On this issue, Obama finally called their bluff.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Those really worked out for us.

Was going to say, not entirely sure how those worked out for my family, but, you know, whatever.

Let's not forget the matter of the Bush administration dragging us into two wars with little to no preparation or exit strategy whatsoever-that's certainly part of the reason we're in the mess we're in now.

 

[cielonorte]

Still President.

Yep.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Those really worked out for us.

ooh, or those stimulus packages we got in 2007 or something? that $300 i got sure prevented me from losing my job!

 

[HBK-79]

RNC Chair Priebus compares Obama to Captain Schettino

On Face the Nation this past Sunday, Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus likens President Obama to the captain who abandoned the sinking Costa Concordia.

The fight for the GOP nomination has become rough-and-tumble, with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich throwing verbal jabs at each other on the campaign trail and debate stages. And when they aren't beating up each other, they are jabbing at President Obama, calling him a failure and a socialist.

It's part of the campaign circus - candidates and their surrogates slinging mud to sway voters. But Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus took the bashing to a new level in comparing Mr. Obama to the captain of the capsized Costa Concordia cruise ship, in speaking with Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"In the end, in a few months, this is all going to be ancient history and we're going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama who is abandoning the ship here in the United States. He's more interested in campaigning than doing his job as President," Priebus said.

Democratic National Committee Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also appeared on "Face the Nation," couldn't top that line of attack. The best she could do was call Mitt Romney "out-of-step" and "extreme."

"Mitt Romney is so out of step with the priorities of Floridians, I mean I've stood in line behind senior citizens in my district who had to leave one or two of their prescriptions at the counter because of the donut hole in the prescription drug program," Wasserman Schultz told Schieffer. "Mitt Romney would repeal the Affordable Care Act - any of the Republicans would - and that would mean we would reopen the donut hole and seniors would have less affordable prescription drugs again."

RNC Chair Priebus compares Obama to Captain Schettino - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

RNC Chair Priebus compares Obama to Captain Schettino

I was watching that and I couldn't believe it, then I could. Cute little soundbite I guess. This is going to get very dirty.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

funny, i don't recall them bitching when bush did the same thing in 2004 (or any president serving his first term, to not make this a bush vs. obama thing). though the best thing they could've done was to just ignore his comment and not print it at all.

 

[U2DMfan]

But glad you now recognize that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. (thank you Bush tax cuts)

How about let's just use numbers and not partisan blather?
What you say is true...and also not a whole truth.

Numbers and percentages are Federal Revenues relative to GDP

1981, Reagan - 19%
*tax cuts*
1983, Reagan - 17% (low of revenue)
1987, Reagan - 18% (height of revenue)
*growing deficit at the height of growth and federal revenue*
*revenues flatline at 17% until 1995*

2001, Bush 20% -
*tax cuts*
*Tech bubble bursts*
*9/11*
2003, Bush 16% -
more *tax cuts*
2004, Bush 16% (low of revenue)
2007, Bush 18% (height of revenue)
*growing deficit at the height of growth and federal revenue*

Both cases, twenty years apart, demonstrate the exact same thing.
Supply side economics does two things.
A) Creates revenue shortages, followed by revenue growth.
B) Leads to growing deficits because the cost of desired Govt is too high.

FTR, this is why Republicans (as Romney does) use 18% as the ideal number.
Currently it is at 15%, projected to get to 18% by '13 and 19% by '15.

From 1997-1999, the budget was balanced, and the number was 19%.
With entitlement costs rising, and defense costs going nowhere (don't allow yourself to be fooled by false 'cuts') then that number - objectively and demonstrably needs to be at least 19%, if not 20% heading into the future.

And this is why Republicans, both out of office or choosing not to run again, on at least three different commissions, have all said the same thing. Cuts and revenue increases.

Supply-side economics works if you can reduce the cost of Government...but you can't. Not even Bush with his Republican Congress from '01 to '07 managed to do it. Why? Because they want to stay in office (another term limit argument of mine! )

Reagan and W Bush both had growing deficits precisely because the stark reality is that they can't generate enough revenues using supply-side for the Govt that the people desire. And they all know this. But that doesn't stop them from using it as a tool to continue to convince people to vote against their best interests.

I'd be all for supply-side if it made mathematical sense.
I do believe we should keep taxes as low as possible...I think Clinton had it about right. Which is why he is easily the most fiscally conservative President of recent memory. Imagine that.

Numbers taken from here:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1950_2015USp_F0f

 

[INDY500]

How about let's just use numbers and not partisan blather?
What you say is true...and also not a whole truth.

Numbers and percentages are Federal Revenues relative to GDP

1981, Reagan - 19%
*tax cuts*
1983, Reagan - 17% (low of revenue)
1987, Reagan - 18% (height of revenue)
*growing deficit at the height of growth and federal revenue*
*revenues flatline at 17% until 1995*

2001, Bush 20% -
*tax cuts*
*Tech bubble bursts*
*9/11*
2003, Bush 16% -
more *tax cuts*
2004, Bush 16% (low of revenue)
2007, Bush 18% (height of revenue)
*growing deficit at the height of growth and federal revenue*

Both cases, twenty years apart, demonstrate the exact same thing.
Supply side economics does two things.
A) Creates revenue shortages, followed by revenue growth.
B) Leads to growing deficits because the cost of desired Govt is too high.

I think we agree then on most of this. The number you aren't using is total GDP and total revenues. If the goal is to grow the economy and produce jobs then we need to see those to judge if tax cuts worked or not. (They did in the 80's)

FTR, this is why Republicans (as Romney does) use 18% as the ideal number.
Currently it is at 15%, projected to get to 18% by '13 and 19% by '15.

Those numbers must be based on some optimistic numbers concerning our recovery.

Supply-side economics works if you can reduce the cost of Government...but you can't. Not even Bush with his Republican Congress from '01 to '07 managed to do it. Why? Because they want to stay in office (another term limit argument of mine! )

Reagan and W Bush both had growing deficits precisely because the stark reality is that they can't generate enough revenues using supply-side for the Govt that the people desire. And they all know this. But that doesn't stop them from using it as a tool to continue to convince people to vote against their best interests.

Well you'll get no argument from me that you can't cut taxes AND grow the government. Reagan had a Dem controlled House all 8 years and Senate part of his term to deal with. Bush... no excuse.

I'd be all for supply-side if it made mathematical sense.
I do believe we should keep taxes as low as possible...I think Clinton had it about right. Which is why he is easily the most fiscally conservative President of recent memory. Imagine that.

Two points here. Do you believe in the Laffer Curve. The key is finding the optimal rate, high enough to raise needed revenues but not high enough to retard growth (and revenues). Second, there is the moral component. Some of us think that a flat tax is the fairest thing (adjusted for Soc sec and Medicare taxes), other believe a progressive code is "fairer." And some of us believe there is a limit to what the government should ever ask of a citizen in taxes. But, that's not objective that's subjective and philosophical.

 

[U2DMfan]

IThe number you aren't using is total GDP and total revenues. If the goal is to grow the economy and produce jobs then we need to see those to judge if tax cuts worked or not. (They did in the 80's)

Those numbers are federal revenues because I was talking about tax cuts from Congress, enacted by the signatures of Presidents. I was talking about tax policy and regarding its effectiveness in balancing the federal budget.

State revenues or State GDP are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with China owning so much of our growing federal debt.

With regarding job creation, that might be a different conversation.

Well you'll get no argument from me that you can't cut taxes AND grow the government. Reagan had a Dem controlled House all 8 years and Senate part of his term to deal with. Bush... no excuse.

And since no Republicans, not even the current crop, are willing to cut the amount of Govt required to balance the budget, we - not only - have to look at ways to increase revenue, we have to admit that supply-side can't work within this paradigm. Because it hasn't.

Two points here. Do you believe in the Laffer Curve. The key is finding the optimal rate, high enough to raise needed revenues but not high enough to retard growth (and revenues). Second, there is the moral component. Some of us think that a flat tax is the fairest thing (adjusted for Soc sec and Medicare taxes), other believe a progressive code is "fairer." And some of us believe there is a limit to what the government should ever ask of a citizen in taxes. But, that's not objective that's subjective and philosophical.

We need only look at the data to get a general idea where that optimal rate should reside. I believe that the moral component is very real and I agree that in a perfect world, a flat-tax is the fairest thing. But I also acknowledge the idea that we don't live in that fantasy and that a (more simplified) progressive code is where we should be. I also agree that there is absolutely a limit to what the Govt should ask of citizens in taxes...but if we are asking for a fancy car, rather than one from the junkyard, we should also acknowledge that we have to pay for it.

Even the vast majority of conservatives love both Social Security, Medicare and a strong national defense. They just need to realize that, quite demonstrably, Reaganomics has failed to properly pay for it.

Philosophically, I'm sure we aren't that far apart (as an ideal fairness).
But at some point philosophy is superseded by the reality on the ground.

 

[Irvine511]

in more good news, the Afghanistan War will be ending soon.

 

[BEAL]

Bring on Iran!!!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

God, let's hope not.

Wow, really? We may finally be getting out of Afghanistan?

That would be fantastic.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Blending politics and religion, President Barack Obama said his Christian faith is a driving force behind his economic policies, from Wall Street reform to his calls for the wealthy to pay higher taxes.

Obama's remarks Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast were his most explicit account of how his personal religious beliefs factor into his decision-making on the nation's pressing problems. The comments came amid election-year criticism from Catholic groups and some Republicans that the president is waging a war on religion following his decision to require church-affiliated institutions to cover free birth control for employees.

Speaking to more than 3,000 people at the annual breakfast, Obama said "faith and values" should play as much as role in tackling the nation's challenges as sound decision-making and smart policies.

He said, for example, that his own call for fairness in the tax code — a central tenet of his State of the Union address and his 2012 campaign — is both economically sound and consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

"If I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense," he said. "But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.' It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others."

He also said the Wall Street reform he championed both "makes the economy stronger for everyone" and abides by God's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" because it helped people who had been hurt or treated unfairly by financial institutions.

And Obama said he believed in a "biblical call" to care for the poor and to follow "the responsibility we're given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.'"

The president's remarks came one day after Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, created a flap with clumsy comments about the poor.

Romney said wasn't concerned about the "very poor" because they have a safety net. He also said he wasn't concerned about the very rich and intended to focus his campaign on the middle class.

"You can focus on the very poor; that's not my focus," Romney said.

While the White House said the president's remarks were not meant to be political, his comments did fit neatly into the Obama campaign's effort to draw sharp contrasts between the president and Romney.

The former Massachusetts governor is among Republicans who have criticized the president for not exempting religious organizations from a requirement in the 2010 health care law that requires insurers to cover birth control for their employees. Romney said this week that the president was ordering "religious organizations to violate their conscience."

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Obama has "declared war on the Catholic Church," and House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday the mandate violates the Constitution.

Obama never mentioned the controversy in his remarks Thursday, nor did he reference his Republican rivals by name. But his broader defense of his policies was a rare interjection of politics into the annual prayer breakfast. The breakfast is organized by bipartisan congressional lawmakers, but speakers often avoid overt political references beyond calling for civility and respect in Washington.

While Obama speaks often about his faith, he prefers to worship in private. He said Thursday that he starts each morning with a brief prayer, then spends time reading scripture. Sometimes, he said, pastors come to the Oval Officer to pray with him, for his family and for the country.

He also described his own religious transformation in deeply personal language Thursday, from growing up in a non-religious home to finding Christ later in his life. He recalled a visit a few years ago with the evangelist Rev. Billy Graham, which ended with the president feeling compelled to pray for the aging Graham.

Obama said when he found himself at that moment not knowing what to say, the Holy Spirit interceded.

"I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment, asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong," he said.

 

[INDY500]

 

[PhilsFan]

That doesn't make any sense and you know it.

 

[anitram]

Talk about concern trolling.

 

[INDY500]

Actually it's quite the issue outside of secular group-think bubbles. The White House, for one, greatly underestimated the backlash to this edict.

 

[BVS]

Actually it's quite the issue outside of liberal group-think bubbles. The White House, for one, greatly underestimated the backlash to this edict.

You mean inside far right bubbles.

Which fully Catholic funded centers will this effect?

 

[anitram]

Actually it's quite the issue outside of liberal group-think bubbles. The White House, for one, greatly underestimated the backlash to this edict.

I hope you keep running on this "backlash". It's a great, winning issue for the GOP. The louder, the better.

 

[Irvine511]

Actually it's quite the issue outside of secular group-think bubbles. The White House, for one, greatly underestimated the backlash to this edict.

backlash from the 98% of Catholics who use birth control?

as the chart shows, it's not a "religious" issue at all, it's an identity issue for white evangelical protestants.