Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:09 UTC
Legal Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people, the Obama administration has a dark side. Joe Biden and many others on staff come straight from the RIAA camp, and it shows. Today, the Obama administration disregarded every US law relating to theft and copyright by stating that piracy is "flat, unadulterated theft".
Thread beginning with comment 438889
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 08:16 UTC in reply to "Screwed again"
FuriousGeorge
Member since:
2010-08-26

Funny how this administration is "pro-little-guy" when it costs me money, and pro-corporation when -- you guessed it -- it costs me money.


Taxes are lower, not higher. As reported in right-leaning Forbes (as in Steve Forbes) Magazine:

More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.


It's a common mistake.

Tom: doing what I think are some great things for the American people

Yep, bankers, Hollywood and rich people love him.


Actually, Wall St. stopped donating after the passage of financial reform.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/wall-street-donations-shift...

Follow the money to see what bankers think about this administration's policies.

As far as "rich people" benefiting disproportionally from the current administration's policies: that;s just silly talk.

The unemployed middle class is having second thoughts.


This amounts to "you're not fixing an epic disaster which occurred under the last guy's watch fast enough!" This truly is the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and unemployment is a lagging indicator.

"Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people..."

Oh, you mean like the 1.4 TRILLION dollar annual Federal debt that future generations will be saddled with???


Are you suggesting Hoover-nomics?

How did cutting spending work out under Herbert Hoover leading into the Great Depression?

How did increasing spending work out for FDR?

How does history remember those policies?

If balancing the budget is your concern, then you must favor allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the richest two percent. That is not a "new tax" by the way. It's the current law mandated by the use of reconciliation to pass the bill in the first place, and would save 1 Trillion $.

It's 3.7 Trillion if you allow them to expire for everyone, which pays for TARP (which was not passed by this administration, contrary to popular belief) and The Stimulus.

Also, contrary to other mythology propagated by politicians seeking (re-)election, cutting taxes (surprisingly) does not balance a budget.

Some of you guys sound misinformed on political issues.

P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president?

Edited 2010-09-01 08:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Screwed again
by ricegf on Wed 1st Sep 2010 09:32 in reply to "RE: Screwed again"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

"P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president? "

Y'know, you really can't just go around making stuff up like this and expect a pass.

Go look at the Congressional Budget Office data*. (I hope you're not like other Reagan-haters to whom I've pointed this out, who insist that the CBO just isn't as reliable source of information on the economy as MoveOn?)

Look at 1981 (when President Reagan took office) and 1989 (when he left office).

The deficit grew from 2% to 3% of GDP.

Now look at 2009 (when President Obama took office) and today (the dashed line).

The deficit grew from 3% to 6%, with projections of 9% by the end of 2010.

Yes, sure, the economy is bad - but it was a disaster when Mr. Reagan took office, too (remember 14% inflation and 20% mortgages? No, you probably don't). When he left office, inflation was only 3% and mortgage rates were down to 7%. The economic recovery begun under his watch continued right up until 9/11. Winning the Cold War was just gravy.

Set aside your hatred for a moment and let your inner geek emerge - look at the data. Reagan is remembered so fondly by most Americans** because his policies worked.

Will Mr. Obama's? Too early to tell. I hope so, but I fear he and the lopsided congress will spend us into bankruptcy first.

* See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/MainText.3.1.shtml#1100451. That huge freaking cliff on the right is Mr. Obama's "spend us into prosperity" strategy at work.

** See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_t.... Ronald Reagan places 5th, 2nd, 2nd and 9th in recent polls seeking the best president in all of history.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Screwed again
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 09:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Screwed again"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Will Mr. Obama's? Too early to tell. I hope so, but I fear he and the lopsided congress will spend us into bankruptcy first.


You do realise the US has been bankrupt for years, right?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 10:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Screwed again"
FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

"P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president? "

Y'know, you really can't just go around making stuff up like this and expect a pass.


Not making anything up. Perhaps it's my fault for trying to be too succinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_ter...

Change in Debt/GDP (like I said "by percentage")
Bush II (R): +27.2%
Clinton (D): -9.7%
Bush I (R): +15%
Reagan (R): +20.6%
Carter (D): -3%
Ford/Nixon (R/R): -2.8%
Kennedy/Johnson (D/D): -16.6%

So, I guess I stand corrected. Reagan had the second largest increase in debt as a percentage of any modern president. I guess I heard that stat before Bush II's 2nd term was completed, and the Tea Party failed to enlighten me since then.

Go look at the Congressional Budget Office data*. (I hope you're not like other Reagan-haters to whom I've pointed this out, who insist that the CBO just isn't as reliable source of information on the economy as MoveOn?)


I will never disparage the CBO. I believe what they say, be it about deficits or how the health care legislation reduces them. I'm never selective about that.

Look at 1981 (when President Reagan took office) and 1989 (when he left office).

The deficit grew from 2% to 3% of GDP.

Now look at 2009 (when President Obama took office) and today (the dashed line).

The deficit grew from 3% to 6%, with projections of 9% by the end of 2010.


The wars were not on the books before he took office, he inherited the greatest economic disaster since the great depression. Paul Krugman won a Nobel prize in economics, and he supports even a second stimulus.

Still, this is just academic. Perhaps the only thing that Dick Cheney and Paul Krugmen agree on is that "Deficits don't matter". One of those guys won a nobel prize for economics by the way.

Strangely, there was no tea party to "refudiate" Cheney for that statement. Sometimes I wonder if the teabaggers want limited government, or government limited to conservatives ;)

Yes, sure, the economy is bad - but it was a disaster when Mr. Reagan took office, too (remember 14% inflation and 20% mortgages? No, you probably don't).


I was born two months later, but I don't remember the Civil War either if you want to look at it that way.

When he left office, inflation was only 3% and mortgage rates were down to 7%. The economic recovery begun under his watch continued right up until 9/11. Winning the Cold War was just gravy.


You forgot about the Bush I recession, which was followed by 8 years of prosperity under Clinton.

Also, you forgot to mention that the "Carter Recession" was official in 1982, which was the second year of Reagan's term.

That is a popular myth, which is cogently debunked here:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm

... and on many other sites ;)

A lot of people make that mistake, though.

Set aside your hatred for a moment and let your inner geek emerge - look at the data. Reagan is remembered so fondly by most Americans** because his policies worked.


I bear neither hatred nor much of an inner geek. I am just interpreting the data and calling it like I see it.

Even Bush Sr. (famously) referred to Reaganomics as "Voodoo-Economics", and as we saw in August '08, the final verdict on that was not pretty.

It really doesn't matter to me much how "most Americans" view Reagans legacy. Most Americans are skeptical or non-believers in climate change, evolution, Obama being a Christian, Obama being American, and under who's watch TARP was passed.

What would a poll about Jim Crow in South Carolina 1960 show?

Will Mr. Obama's? Too early to tell. I hope so, but I fear he and the lopsided congress will spend us into bankruptcy first.


Again, largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover (R) taught us that not spending is a disastrous policy in such circumstances.

Those who do not understand history are destined to want to repeat it.

Besides, this congress can't get anything passed. Under Reagan about 6% of legislation went to filibusterer. Now it's more like 40%.

Also, TARP was as big as the Stimulus, passed under Bush, and benefited no one but the people who were deregulated into precipitating the crisis we find ourselves in today.

* See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/MainText.3.1.shtml#1100451. That huge freaking cliff on the right is Mr. Obama's "spend us into prosperity" strategy at work.


Your assertion that the chart proves Obama is increasing the national debt disproportionately is a misrepresentation of the data.

Obama spent a few billion bailing out GM, and 780 billion on the stimulus whereas bush spent 700 billion on TARP, about another trillion on bail outs, a several trillion on tax cuts, and about a trillion on both wars.

Check out this article on MSN about how the total cost of the Bush era was about 12 Trillion (with a capitol "T") dollars.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTradin...

40% of Obama's stimulus spending was in tax cuts (republican platform), and if you like the CBO you must agree that health care reform reduces the deficit, so that cannot count against obama by your metrics.

The bottom line here is that blaming Obama for the national debt is about as fair as blaming him for the mortgage meltdown of '08, the wars, the bush tax cuts, and the bush bailouts.

** See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_t.... Ronald Reagan places 5th, 2nd, 2nd and 9th in recent polls seeking the best president in all of history.


Still don't care much for public opinion polls. Still, by your own reference FDR blows Reagan out of the water in everything but a few recent public opinion polls (see also: biased and unscientific).

FDR's margin of victory increases when you discount the opinions of the laity.

Since the only fact you disagreed with me on was the debt number, which I have just clarified, then can I assume we are in agreement on everything else?

For instance, you must be against extending the Bush tax cuts (the ones increasing the debt which were passed through reconciliation).

Finally, here's another fun fact:

http://ei-forum.com/2008/11/04/stock-market-returns-democrats-vs-re...

The New York Times has published a really interesting chart/study showing that under a Democratic Presidency the average yearly return is better and that a $10,000 investment in the S&P in 1929 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only and to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9% under Democratic Presidents:

By the way, this was in 11/08. The S&P dropped another 10% before Obama was inaugurated.

Edited 2010-09-01 10:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1