Disgusted With Obama Administration.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted With Obama Administration.
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jul 10, 2012 11:41 AM
[LEFT]"And in all this Hosanna-reporting, nowhere to be found is the inconvenient truth that these huge June sales were mostly fueled by...government purchases.
We now learn that government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79% in June.
Meaning Barack Obama is now campaigning on the “success” of - the government buying cars from...the government’s car company. With our money.
That’s like you setting up a lemonade stand for your kids. You buy them the lemons, sugar, cups and pitchers - and then buy most of the lemonade yourself.
Except you are President Obama. Your kids are the United Autoworkers Union. And the lemonade cost $50 billion.
At least you get to tax your neighbors for the $50 billion.
Again - in what Bizarro-world is this auto bailout the “success” the Jurassic Press incessantly reports it is?"
[/LEFT]
Jul 10, 2012 11:41am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jul 10, 2012 11:42 AM
^^ above info from newsbusters.org


oh, the folly .............
Jul 10, 2012 11:42am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jul 10, 2012 11:46 AM
pmoney25;1222390 wrote:I don't think its hypocritical for Paul to use Republican resources considering he is an actual republican libertarian.
fixed
pmoney25;1222390 wrote:I think nominating Romney is a slap in the face to the real republican party.
Apparently Republican voters in the Republican primaries didn't think so.
pmoney25;1222390 wrote:But at least Romney will repeal obamacare and save the country.
Romney can't but a Republican majority in both houses of Congress might.
pmoney25;1222390 wrote:I think Bill Parcells said it best "you are what your record says you are" and it is fairly obvious what Romneys record is.
And Obama's is far more obvious. Again, feel free to vote for your libertarian loser and help give Barry 4 more years to scold, finger point, chastise, and spend us into oblivion. :rolleyes:
Jul 10, 2012 11:46am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jul 10, 2012 12:07 PM
I guess we should take the boomers advice and just go to the polls and vote D or R. That'll change things, the country will be saved.

It amazes me how incredible talented and smart people at far too partisan. Both D's and R's are their current state are absolutely fraud and not very different.
Jul 10, 2012 12:07pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jul 10, 2012 12:08 PM
If Obama wins, remember, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. That is the logic that I've been told is relevant here.
Jul 10, 2012 12:08pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Jul 10, 2012 12:12 PM
sleeper;1222436 wrote:I guess we should take the boomers advice and just go to the polls and vote D or R. That'll change things, the country will be saved.
Damn, getting hit with that broad brush stings. :)
Jul 10, 2012 12:12pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jul 10, 2012 12:37 PM
queencitybuckeye;1222442 wrote:Damn, getting hit with that broad brush stings. :)
You aren't the average boomer. My apologies.
Jul 10, 2012 12:37pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 10, 2012 3:32 PM
QuakerOats;1222530 wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-10/democrats-to-risk-fiscal-cliff-by-targeting-top-earners.html

The War on High Wage Earners and the liberal politics of DIVIDE continue -- even in the face of fiscal calamity.
"allowing the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to temporarily expire for everyone on Dec. 31 and accepting scheduled spending reductions, including for Pentagon programs favored by Republicans."

That sounds great. Let's do that.
Jul 10, 2012 3:32pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Jul 10, 2012 4:07 PM
I Wear Pants;1222632 wrote:"allowing the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to temporarily expire for everyone on Dec. 31 and accepting scheduled spending reductions, including for Pentagon programs favored by Republicans."

That sounds great. Let's do that.

The left continues to blame Bush --- funny. Why not label the expiration for what it is: obama tax increases! They will mesh well with his 20 new taxes/increases in obamacare.

6 months from the fiscal cliff ---- do we drive off, or do we turn around on Nov 6th.
Jul 10, 2012 4:07pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 10, 2012 4:16 PM
QuakerOats;1222678 wrote:The left continues to blame Bush --- funny. Why not label the expiration for what it is: obama tax increases! They will mesh well with his 20 new taxes/increases in obamacare.

6 months from the fiscal cliff ---- do we drive off, or do we turn around on Nov 6th.
The tax cuts were implemented by George W. Bush correct? Therefore it is fine to call them George W. Bush-era tax cuts because they, well, are.

I'd be fine with the tax cuts expiring if it meant the Dems and GOP both accepted spending reductions for their favored programs.

But I'm sure you'd much rather raise taxes on those bastard poor who aren't paying enough, lower corporate and wealthy taxes even more or to zero, and then give corporations and banks more billions in interest free loans and bailouts. That's apparently the GOP plan for the economy. The democratic one isn't much different except for the tax issue is flipped.
Jul 10, 2012 4:16pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jul 10, 2012 6:31 PM
sleeper;1222386 wrote: I won't address fish and his seemingly obsessive interest in my voting decision.
LOL...calm down bro. I was just curious. :laugh:

I understand your need for privacy in the matter. Consider it dropped.
Jul 10, 2012 6:31pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jul 10, 2012 6:34 PM
I Wear Pants;1222632 wrote:"allowing the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to temporarily expire for everyone on Dec. 31 and accepting scheduled spending reductions, including for Pentagon programs favored by Republicans."

That sounds great. Let's do that.
Why do they need to expire? The government is already taking in more money than at any time in history. Maybe we should look at some spending cuts first and see if we can actually make that happen for a change.
Jul 10, 2012 6:34pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 10, 2012 6:44 PM
I Wear Pants;1222689 wrote:...

I'd be fine with the tax cuts expiring if it meant the Dems and GOP both accepted spending reductions for their favored programs.

...
Id be fine with that so long as the increased revenue was designated to debt reduction and both social and military expenditures were cut equally from a percentage perspective.

This would of course further slow economic growth.
Jul 10, 2012 6:44pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Jul 10, 2012 7:18 PM
I Wear Pants;1222689 wrote:The tax cuts were implemented by George W. Bush correct? Therefore it is fine to call them George W. Bush-era tax cuts because they, well, are.

I'd be fine with the tax cuts expiring if it meant the Dems and GOP both accepted spending reductions for their favored programs.
I don't disagree but we ought to pass this type of plan to go into effect in the long term when economic indicators are better. We see how extending the tax cuts for two years proved a folly because the economy didn't turn around in two years
Jul 10, 2012 7:18pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Jul 10, 2012 7:19 PM
Con_Alma;1222791 wrote:Id be fine with that so long as the increased revenue was designated to debt reduction and both social and military expenditures were cut equally from a percentage perspective.

This would of course further slow economic growth.
^This! We need to attach such a plan to economic indicators!
Jul 10, 2012 7:19pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Jul 10, 2012 7:24 PM
fish82;1222778 wrote:Why do they need to expire? The government is already taking in more money than at any time in history.
Absolutely not true as a percentage of GDP which is the name of the game. I'm sure you're talking in nominal numbers but that makes no sense. We're taking in 14.9% as a percentage of gdp. The historical average is just above 18%. The lowest amount that came in during the Reagan Years was 17.4% in 1984. We need to at the very least get back to 18% or we have no hope.
Jul 10, 2012 7:24pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 10, 2012 7:28 PM
BoatShoes;1222827 wrote:Absolutely not true as a percentage of GDP which is the name of the game. I'm sure you're talking in nominal numbers but that makes no sense. We're taking in 14.9% as a percentage of gdp. The historical average is just above 18%. The lowest amount that came in during the Reagan Years was 17.4% in 1984. We need to at the very least get back to 18% or we have no hope.
I disagree we have no hope less than 18% of GDP. There are expenses and programs the government provides that don't need to rias at the rate of GDP but rather at inflationary cost.

Has government expenditures risen faster than inflation since over the last 40 years? Just because the economy grow doesn't mean the government services necessarily need to increase at the same rate.
Jul 10, 2012 7:28pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Jul 10, 2012 7:42 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;1221402 wrote:My sweet santa clause christ.

1) The stimulus wasn't just a failure, it might have been the biggest failure in the history of the U.S. Look at recovery stats from previous recessions, we've blown our proverbial load on the likes of Solyndra and other politically motivated targets that barely made a dent in employment and pissed our money down the drain.

2) If you have the balls to call me out have the balls to give the Feds your money, there is a place on your 1040 where you can willingly give the government more money (assuming you pay any taxes at all - my guess is you don't). I don't trust the Feds, see #1.

3) What does Cameron have to do with any of this? Oh, nothing (BTW, my wife was just at Wimbledon since I'm one of the fewer and fewer Americans that can afford that type of thing). Seriously, WTF?

4) Agreed, but we just can't pay people to dig ditches and others to fill them up. That doesn't work. We need real growth, that includes fostering a business friendly environment. That means fewer regulations, less government bloat, fewer restrictions on businesses that want to hire. Currently under the Obamaconomy businesses are dared to hire. We have an administration with an economic background. It is poor.

5) Healthcare just became every taxpayer's business - the problem is only half of Americans pay taxes. Under Obamacare the "penalty" is unenforceable. This just raised the taxes of people that make between US$50,000 to US$200,000 (the ultra-wealthy will opt out, and the poor won't pay it and the government can't force them to pay it). It is a terrible law. I've read most of it, and the worst parts (the 1099 aspect which would have caused the most egregious business bureaucracy in the history of the world [seriously, no hyperbole - every single business transaction would be under the auspices of the federal government], which thankfully was eventually canned since even a broken clock is accurate twice a day and the banks/hedge funds that support the DEMS demanded it get canned).

This administration has outCartered Jimmy Carter. Even Larry Summers disagrees with his policies. We can't just spend ourselves out of this. And we certainly can't spend ourselves in incompetent manners which the administration has done.
1. No. The Stimulus bill was not a failure in the sense you say it was. It was only a failure in that it was not large enough. You compare the recovery of other recessions of which the Reagan and Bush 43 recovery had much higher growth in public employment (which you deride) and yet if we had that type of public sector growth (not just at 09 levels) unemployment in the United States would be around 6%. These are the facts. Your blathering on are not.

2. I'm lucky enough to earn an income that warrants that I pay taxes and I freely lend to the government and doing so has earned me a better return than most people get by investing in hedge funds these days. No wonder so many other investors are willing to do so at historically low rates even though we got our credit downgraded!

3. It's funny you always bring up Keynes' metaphor about digging ditches. The point of it was that even something as silly as that would be better than what you suggest. There a multitude of productive things that the unemployed could be doing. Hey, we could even pay their wages when private companies with for profit motives hire them or keep them on the job like Germany does. None of what you say is going to grow the economy is going to work if there is an army unemployed people with no money just trying to survive. The downward pressure on wages and the surplus army of the unemployed give businesses no incentive to hire.

4. (oops skipped the incoherent comment about your wife at Wimbledon) David Cameron has everything to do with this because we can actually see happening in the real world what a Romney like presidency would be like and it is even worse than here. How is this so hard to understand?

5. What's really amazing is I just know you would have no such complaints if Romney had passed it. I wish I could see the alternative future. Massachusetts and Switzerland are governed under basically the same law and the world has not collapsed and your dooms-day scenarios have not come to fruition. Everything's going to be ok.

6. Larry Summers disagrees because they're not liberal enough. We can certainly spend ourselves out of these and investors are begging to the lend the government the money to do it.
Jul 10, 2012 7:42pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jul 10, 2012 7:45 PM
BoatShoes;1222827 wrote:Absolutely not true as a percentage of GDP which is the name of the game.
For you, it obviously is, at least every single time someone presents numbers you don't like. :rolleyes:

There are plenty of economists who maintain taxes as a % of GDP is just as meaningless as you claim actual dollars to be. In any case, it's already been established that as the economy improves, your magical 18% will be eclipsed within 4-5 years, even if the tax cuts were made permanent.
Jul 10, 2012 7:45pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Jul 10, 2012 7:54 PM
jhay78;1221494 wrote:I was going to say that. If unemployment must be fixed first, then hire a few million people to dig ditches (with spoons), and a few million to fill them back in. Boom, problem solved. Of course, nothing of value is created. I thought the New Deal proved that doesn't work?
First of all the New Deal was a huge success but the subsequent turn to deficit reduction in 1937 (too soon) put us back into a recession and FDR was on his way out until Hitler came to power.

And surely conservatives could think of things the unemployed could do that they "value" eh?

How bout building a massive wall on the border of mexico to stop illegals from getting in once and for all? How bout building a huge arsenal of long range ICBMS armed with conventional warheads? How bout invading Iran and taking out their nuclear facilities? How bout building more F-22's? How bout building space based laser weapons? How bout a high speed network of MagLevs for freight to get goods to market faster or weapons to port faster? How bout hiring a bunch of INS agents/bounty hunters to round up every last illegal immigrant after we build the wall?


All of these programs would create "value" in the minds of a lot of conservatives

During the "Heat Wave" people across the country were swimming in pools that were built by the Works Progress Administration...DECADES AGO...do you think those didn't add "value" to those communities? GMAFB!

Keynes' ditch digging metaphor was to point out that even such a silly exercise would be better than the alternative.


Case and Point: QuakerOats posts that 85,000 people went on disability (for life!) and only 80,000 got jobs. Even a Quadriplegic could do a productive job like work at a call center via a phone plugged in in his room at his nursing home. And, a lot of those folks probably aren't "totally disabled" in the sense we use the word but they go on benefits when they can't get a job and they're awarded!

In my world, we could put them to good use and pay them compensation for services rendered. In reality, they're either on the dole anyways providing nothing of value to their local, state or federal governments or joining the surplus army of the unemployed competing for jobs with downward pressure on wages with the free market not providing enough work.

The solutions are simple but it is amazing how many excuses people will find to do NOTHING as disaster ensues!
Jul 10, 2012 7:54pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Jul 10, 2012 7:59 PM
fish82;1222849 wrote:For you, it obviously is, at least every single time someone presents numbers you don't like. :rolleyes:

There are plenty of economists who maintain taxes as a % of GDP is just as meaningless as you claim actual dollars to be. In any case, it's already been established that as the economy improves, your magical 18% will be eclipsed within 4-5 years, even if the tax cuts were made permanent.
No. I'm sorry but the fact that nominally we have more tax dollars makes no sense because of inflation...I know you know this, guy. I don't like the number because it is a silly number to use, period.

Your second point is true that eventually we got back up to that level and if we were at full employment there's reason to believe that we could be back around that level but that's not the point you were making; that "we have more tax revenue than ever" which is nonsensical.
Jul 10, 2012 7:59pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jul 10, 2012 8:47 PM
BoatShoes;1222861 wrote:No. I'm sorry but the fact that nominally we have more tax dollars makes no sense because of inflation...I know you know this, guy. I don't like the number because it is a silly number to use, period.

Your second point is true that eventually we got back up to that level and if we were at full employment there's reason to believe that we could be back around that level but that's not the point you were making; that "we have more tax revenue than ever" which is nonsensical.
The government is taking in more dollars than any time in history....even accounting for inflation. The government has more dollars available to spend than at any time in our country's history. The fact that you deem that insignificant speaks volumes.
Jul 10, 2012 8:47pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jul 10, 2012 8:59 PM
BoatShoes;1222861 wrote:No. I'm sorry but the fact that nominally we have more tax dollars makes no sense because of inflation...I know you know this, guy. I don't like the number because it is a silly number to use, period.

Your second point is true that eventually we got back up to that level and if we were at full employment there's reason to believe that we could be back around that level but that's not the point you were making; that "we have more tax revenue than ever" which is nonsensical.
It's the number of dollars the government has available to spend, and even adjusted for inflation, the government has as many dollars as they've had at any period in 100 years. I'm not shocked that you think that's a "silly number," though.
Jul 10, 2012 8:59pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 10, 2012 10:10 PM
fish82;1222778 wrote:Why do they need to expire? The government is already taking in more money than at any time in history. Maybe we should look at some spending cuts first and see if we can actually make that happen for a change.
Not per capita it isn't (I don't think) and that's the stat that's actually relevant.
BoatShoes;1222821 wrote:I don't disagree but we ought to pass this type of plan to go into effect in the long term when economic indicators are better. We see how extending the tax cuts for two years proved a folly because the economy didn't turn around in two years
Yeah it could mean that or that the tax cuts actually didn't help the economy or didn't help it much. Those are the two possible conclusions.
Jul 10, 2012 10:10pm