American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE]If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?[/QUOTE]How about:

If George W. Bush had led the country into the deepest recession since WWII, would you have approved?

Oh wait, he did.

[QUOTE]"No matter what meeting Obama is in, he is the least knowledgeable and least experienced person in the room."

This is absolutely true. [/QUOTE]This was clearly never the case with Bush!

Say what you like about Bush, it's a free country (for now at least)

Read some of my pre-Obama posts, I was no fan of Bush, but please drop the pretense that he is either stupid or not accomplished. He graduated from both Yale University and Harvard Business School (1975, long before his dad was Pres) While being a 4th generation legacy at Yale probably helped him get in to the school, it didn't help him get through or get out. Being wealthy and connected probably didn't hurt his application to HBS but again it did not get him through or out of the program.

He was by all accounts a successful business man (although when you start off rich and stay rich, success is difficult to measure) in the oil business and then as co-owner of the Rangers. He defeated Ann Richards, a Democrat legend and formidable foe, for the Governor's mansion of the second largest state in the nation. He won two presidential terms and served them without leaving his DNA on an intern's dress, destroying the health care industry, capitulating to Putin on missile defense, bowing to foreign leaders or increasing the national debt by more than all presidents prior to his dad, combined.

We get it, you hate Bush. Regardless of what you may say the reason is, it isn't due to the fact that he is ignorant or incompetent.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Esten, yes the decimal was omitted in error (it is $3.27 Trillion) but the link to the website was included for "fact checking". You don't dispute the number you just make excuses as to why it is so large. Just as you don't disput the numbers listed on the CNN documentation but try to obscure the facts by blaming it on Bush. [/QUOTE]I did dispute the $3.27T number as not representing the true cost of ARRA. I followed the link to fact-check and with additional research found out it was another right wing deception which you were trying to peddle.

I also disputed that the CNN list totalling $1.2T is all Obama spending. The first item listed is "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008". Did Obama sign that one?

[QUOTE]You keep referring to $787 Billion for the cost of the Stimulus / ARRA of 01/29/2009 when the true cost with all the add ons is really now at least $836 Billion; even the Democrats are using this number and not the $787 Billion you continue to refer to. [/QUOTE]Fair point, sort of. After doing some research I did find a CBO revision to $814B last month. Still close to their original $787 estimate in Feb. 2009. I'll use this number going forward.

However, I thought you said the true cost was $3.27T? Now you say $836B? What made you change your mind?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Fact check this please.

"(CNSNews. Com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U. S. Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan."[/QUOTE]Back on 6/24 we wrote:

[QUOTE]BTW Walleye, I wouldn't trust that cnsnews website. It's a right wing propaganda website with a sly name meant to trick people into thinking it's another well-known established news source.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Agreed that it is not trust worthy. [/QUOTE]'Nuff said.

You obviously can't read.

[QUOTE=Esten]Back on 6/24 we wrote:

'Nuff said.[/QUOTE]That's why I said you need to fact check it! (the request is in the title of my post)

[QUOTE=Esten]If George W. Bush had led the country into the deepest recession since WWII, would you have approved?

Oh wait, he did.[/QUOTE]For the 10,000th time, the current recession was precipitated by Democratic politicians who legislatively mandated the lowering of mortgage qualification standards in pursuit of their liberal goal of increasing the country's percentage of home ownership.

This artificial distortion of the free market resulted in the unintended consequence of the housing market being flooded with new (and previously unqualified) buyers who, in competition for the same inventory of houses, resulted in an artificial run up of home prices.

It's a simple as that, and I for one am tired of liberals blaming the ensuing recession, which they perpetrated by meddling with the free market, on George W. Bush.

You can continue to foist this lie to the gullible idiots in the country, but those of us who are able to think beyond sound bites know who is really responsible.

Thanks,

Jackson

P.S. Sorry everyone, but apparently I'm going to need to re-publish this fact every time somebody tries to blame the recession solely on Bush and/or the Republican Party.

Jackson,

When Clinton left office, there was a multi-billion dollar federal budget surplus and the US Dollar was worth more than the Euro. Then your boy Bush came, issued an unnecessary tax cut while at the same time bankrupting the country through a series of unwinnable and unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which we are still quagmired with today) Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances. Do not forget that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch as a result of Bush stewardship. Obama was left to pick up the pieces in an untenable straightjacket position as a result of Bush's malfeasance.

Obama's recent talk of starting massive infrastructure projects is a step in the right direction. These are projects that have been a long time coming and will provide continuous jobs. Obama needs to accept the fact that Afghanistan is not a real nation-state where a normal government can ever function and get our troops out of there.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Hey HR, thought all the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure were covered under the Stimulus - Obama blew enough money on signs telling us that was what they were doing?

Esten, I said he spent $1 Trillion, CBO projected it to the larger number based on a request to project the costs. Almost every estimate the CBO has produced has been far below the actual cost, which is why you are seeing the upward creep from your original $787 Billion to $836 Billion. The creep will continue and I doubt it will stop at $1 Trillion unless Obama loses the House and Senate which will cut off his funding.

Esten have you given up on the TARP spending Obama did or do you still maintain Bush did it months after Obama took office?

Yes Esten it is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, again. Just like Monica and Clinton – Monica was Right Wing operative sent to ensnare Bill.

This is all getting very silly. Nobody is going to convince anyone here to their point of view. The electorate will vote with their stomach, oh sorry, their pocketbooks rather. I forgot in America, even the poor are fat and funky. Unless, Obama pulls it off down the stretch, he is history as were Carter, Bush, Sr. in recent history.

As most of you know, wars can pull us out of recession. Mmmm, I wonder, where can we invade? I say Argentina! Why not?

Let's let go of our puds for a second and wrap our hands around a little reality, history and facts.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Jackson-

When Clinton left office, there was a multi-billion dollar federal budget surplus and the US Dollar was worth more than the Euro. [/QUOTE]If you recall when Clinton left office they also stole everything that wasn't nailed down in the Whitehouse, vandalized millions of dollars worth of federal property and deliberately hindered the transition to the new administration (which negatively affected our readiness from a home land defense perspective) But, let's not let the truth get in the way.

Your logic is that Clinton left in 2000, and there was a surplus (281B in 2000, according to the US Treasury) Therefore the surplus was due to his stewardship of the economy, right? Wrong.

"You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here? "

Well, let me tell you.

This surplus had nothing to do with Bill Clinton and everything to do with Ronald Reagan and later, Newt Gingrich. The Democrats dominated both houses of congress from 1954 through 1994, when the republicans, riding on the Contract with America, finally broke through. The Democrats' addictions to spending, expanding the role of govt and entitlements and taxing the citizenry to death (and actually beyond death) put us on the path to extinction.

The return of fiscal responsibility to Washington (wow, that is tough to conceptualize) began when Reagan was elected, to remove the scourge foisted upon this great nation named Jimmy Carter. Among other things, he tried to reduce the size and roll of govt, based upon the simple premise of less govt equals less govt spending and grasped the notion that lower taxation leaves more money in the citizens' pockets which leads to more personal spending which grows the economy. Once referred to as Voodoo economics, these concepts together over time produced the above-mentioned surplus.

The economic boom following the 1982 recession won over political leaders of both parties that lower marginal tax rates were essential to a strong economy, while the tax code was too convoluted and negatively affected the economy costing jobs. Reform of the tax code, as highlighted in Reagan's 1984 State of the Union speech, with a system more economically efficient, fairer and simpler with lower rates would result in a broader base and increased Federal tax receipts. The Tax Reform Act of 1986: reduced the top statutory tax rate down from 50 percent to 28 percent and the corporate tax rate from 50 percent to 35 percent. The code was "simplified" and the personal exemption and standard deduction amounts were increased and indexed for inflation which relieved millions of taxpayers of any Federal income tax burden (according to the US Treasury) Keep in mind that the Congress writes most of the checks and when RayGun was president, the Congress 'belonged' to one Thomas "Tip" O'neil. Despite this fact, he was able to LEAD them (in the face of great hostility from the media) to do the right thing in many instances.

Fortunately, Clinton took the Democrat controlled congress he inherited for granted and squandered much of his first two years. Midterm elections came and the resulting shift of majorities effectively restrained much of Clinton's spending agenda. Despite the Republican congress, elected in 1994, tax rates grew ever higher during the 1990s. Throughout the 1990s, strong economic performance prevailed, based upon good economic fundamentals (low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment) the global situation was improving (byproducts of the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union, etc) and new information technologies. This created an enormous increase in the aggregate tax burden, with Federal taxes as a share of GDP reaching a postwar high of 20. 8 percent in 2000. Economic growth driven by private sector innovation lead to tax receipts that outpaced Washington's ability to spend (temporarily)

So that is whence the surplus came.

Had the Democrats won a majority in the 104th Congress, Clinton and the Congress would have squandered every cent of any surplus. Thankfully, the Democrats did not win the Congress and the Republicans did. In fact, one of the primary reasons Clinton was not able to blow through that surplus was the GRIDLOCK that liberals and their lapdog media bleated about incessantly. Me? I'll take gridlock over reckless spending any day.

[quote=] Then your boy Bush came, issued an unnecessary tax cut [/QUOTE]Unnecessary? Tax rates crept up ever since Reagan left office (starting with GHWB) Reagan's tax cutting measures had proved once again what stimulates the economy. When something works, stick with it. Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased federal tax receipts.

[quote=]while at the same time bankrupting the country through a series of unwinnable and unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which we are still quagmired with today)[/QUOTE]I don't think quagmire is a verb. I can't believe we jumped into two wars completely unprovoked and without cause. Must be the republicans paying off the war machine. I won't waste my breath on debating the wars with you. Let's just agree to disagree on the wars. Hey, what are you doing tomorrow?

[quote=] Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances. Do not forget that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch as a result of Bush stewardship. Obama was left to pick up the pieces in an untenable straightjacket position as a result of Bush's malfeasance. [/QUOTE]Straightjacket? Poor choice of analogies since a straightjacket implies something that immobilizes someone not something that enables them to add trillions to the national debt with nothing to show for it.

[quote=]Obama's recent talk of starting massive infrastructure projects is a step in the right direction. These are projects that have been a long time coming and will provide continuous jobs.[/QUOTE]Ok, you're losing me here. You just said

[quote=]Yes, Obama has been a disappointment so far and the stimulus and health care bills are complete shit and are only digging a deeper hole for the nation's finances.[/QUOTE]So the $3T he has spent and committed us to spend, to date, it shit but you trust him to be on point with the next $3T?

What was that Ben Franklin said about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome?

The proof of the net positive effects of tax cutting has been borne out in reality many times. The proof that Keynesian spending helps the economy is only found in dated text books.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Hey HR, thought all the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure were covered under the Stimulus - Obama blew enough money on signs telling us that was what they were doing?[/QUOTE]Actually, the cost of the signs exhausted stimulus 1 so they need stimulus 2 to actually do the work that the signs are supposed to highlight.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412131]Actually, the cost of the signs exhausted stimulus 1 so they need stimulus 2 to actually do the work that the signs are supposed to highlight.[/QUOTE]

Dude, sometimes I think you must be wearing your trousers inside out.

[quote][red]The Mess Bush Left And Other Obama Fables [/red]

By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 09/07/2010 06:35 PM ET

President Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No president of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the congressional Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills, but Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Having created this scary situation, President Obama now says, "Don't give in to fear. Let's reach for hope." The voters reached for hope when they elected Obama. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office. "The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place," he said recently. "In November, you're going to have that choice."

Taxpayers Get The Bill [/quote]So much for blaming it on Bush!

Well, here we have it. The real reason Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy.

So everyone in his administration can continue to [b]not[/b] pay their own taxes. We've got Tim Geithner running Treasury and he just "forgot" to pay $42, 000 in taxes. This is one of the architects of our fiscal policy? He's out there chiding Republicans, claiming that [I]we can't afford[/I] those tax breaks, while he just ignores his own tax obligations? Obviously, you've got a bunch of other ne'er-do-well democrats as well, like Charlie Rangel and Tom Daschle who just "forgot" to pay their taxes, too.

Turns out, that was just the tip of the iceberg. Looks like they've all decided not to pay their taxes. We've got people on this board complaining about the Bush administration? They were just a bunch of rummies compared to these professional thieves. Proof. LA Times, below. Anyone who actually pays their taxes ought to be reaching for their rope after reading this: [b]41 Obama White House aides owe the irs $831, 000 in back taxes. And they're not alone[/b] over the years a lot of suspicion has built up across the country about Washington and its population of opportunistic transients coming to see themselves as a special kind of person, somehow above average working Americans who don't labor down in that monument-strewn former swamp.

Well, finally, an end to all those undocumented doubts. Thanks to some diligent digging by the Washington P. S., those suspicions can at last be put to rest.

They're correct. Accurate. Dead-on. Laser-guided. On target. Bingo-bango. As clear as it's always seemed to those Americans who don't feel special entitlements and do meet their government obligations.

We now know that federal employees across the nation owe fully $1 billion in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.

As in, 1, 000 times one million dollars. All this political jabber about giving middle-class.

Americans a tax cut. Thousands of feds have been giving themselves one all along. Unofficially. And these tax scofflaws include more than three dozen folks who work for the president with that newly decorated oval office.

The P. S. 's t. W. Farnum did some research and found that out of the total sum, just 638 workers on Capitol Hill owe the IRS $9. 3 million in back taxes. As in, overdue. The irs gets stiffed by the legislative body that controls its budget. How washington works.

Now, back taxes have been a problem for the Obama-Biden administration. You may recall early on that Tom Daschle was the president's top pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. But it turned out the former democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120, 000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. You know how that is. $120g's here or there. So he dropped out.

And then we learned this guy Timothy Geithner owed something like $42, 000 in back taxes and penalties to the IRS, which is one of the agencies that he'the be in charge of as Secretary of the Treasury. The fine fellow who's supposed to know about handling everyone else's money. In the end this was excused by Washington's bipartisan cya culture as one of those inadvertent accidental oversights that somehow never seem to happen on the side of paying too much taxes.

And under Geithner's expert guidance the USA economy has been, well, wow! Just look at it.

Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents' names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White house owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831, 055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House mess.

In the house of representatives, 421 people owe a total $6, 524, 892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2, 774, 836. In the IRS's parent department, Treasury, 1, 204 owe $7 670, 814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis' husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7, 481, 463. Eighty-one workers for the federal reserve system's Board of Governors owe $1, 076, 733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1, 071 employees still owe $14, 350, 152 in overdue taxes.

Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former Governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters. " Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is aboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.

Within that department, there reside 4, 856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37, 012, 174.

And they're checking our pockets for metal and coins?

Andrew Malcolm

[quote=Stan Da Man]41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831, 000 in back taxes. And they're not alone.[/quote]I predict that heads will roll for this. Starting with the [you]Washington P. S. [/you] reporter who wrote the article confirming these numbers, and going on to the editor who let the article get into print. "a disgrace to the legacy of Katharine Lee Graham. "

This is part of a long list of federal workers over dozens of departments and groups. It gets in the news periodically. I'm sure federal workers have owed back taxes for ages. It's an issue that should definately be addressed.

But notice the angle taken by some in the media: instead of writing about the overall list of federal workers, the focus is on the White House and Obama. The actual category in the list is the "Executive office of the President" which employs approx. 2000 workers, and includes numerous entities not just the White House.

I have noticed Stan's progression from fairly balanced commentary to increasing negative sentiment. Now this latest P. S. Is nothing more than a Fox News style story highlighting a narrow subset of facts to attack Obama and the White House.

I think it's a bit amusing that Stan voted for Obama, despite admitting he did not agree with his domestic agenda or economic policies. And now he's upset with Obama over his domestic agenda and economic policies.