Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 54 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-30-2012, 09:30 AM   #796
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 01:45 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 01-30-2012, 04:46 PM   #797
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
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/r...50_2015USp_F0f
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 01-31-2012, 06:05 PM   #798
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
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)
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-01-2012, 02:37 PM   #799
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:23 PM   #800
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:45 AM
in more good news, the Afghanistan War will be ending soon.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:13 PM   #801
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,588
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Bring on Iran!!!
__________________
BEAL is offline  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:22 PM   #802
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 01:45 AM
God, let's hope not.

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

That would be fantastic.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-02-2012, 07:11 PM   #803
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:45 AM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 05:33 PM   #804
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:45 AM


__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 06:17 PM   #805
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 02:45 AM
That doesn't make any sense and you know it.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 06:59 PM   #806
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Talk about concern trolling.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 07:11 PM   #807
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Actually it's quite the issue outside of secular group-think bubbles. The White House, for one, greatly underestimated the backlash to this edict.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 07:13 PM   #808
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500
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?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-08-2012, 07:19 PM   #809
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
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.

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 08:12 PM   #810
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com