American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.

It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.

The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/[/url]

Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1.5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.

DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.

Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.

[QUOTE=Esten; 418711]Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.

It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.

The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling.

[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/[/url]

Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1. 5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.

DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.

Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.[/QUOTE]So, federal politicians spent like drunken sailors both when Bush was president and when Obama was president. What's your point? I didn't vote for either one of them, and I'd venture to say that's true of the majority of others posting here as well.

The charts are a load of crap. They describe tax cuts as costs or government spending. That is bull shit. Apparently when government forces me to pay 35% of what I make instead of 39. 6, the difference is spending. The government is spending money on me. Subsidizing me, because I don't pay enough. That 35% when added to a 10% state income tax and a sales tax and property taxes and, some day, a death tax, that just isn't enough. I'm evil. I'm a burden on society. As you say below, I'm getting a free pass.

We're experiencing European levels of unemployment for an extended period, and you view that as a vindication of Keynsian economics?

There is too much standard rhetoric from both the extreme right and left. I guess if you repeat it often enough, they must be true. Didn't Warren Buffett mentioned that he was paying less percentage of tax than his office administrator. Ah, all those loopholes! Taxation never stopped me from working OT or accepting 2nd jobs. Meanwhile, there is alot of people who would rather go home early and take it easy, but use the excuse that Uncle Sam is the culprit. Then we find out that the "nerdy & stupid" immigrants who never turned down a chance to make more money, are paying cash for their cars.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418713]There is too much standard rhetoric from both the extreme right and left. I guess if you repeat it often enough, they must be true. Didn't Warren Buffett mentioned that he was paying less percentage of tax than his office administrator. Ah, all those loopholes! Taxation never stopped me from working OT or accepting 2nd jobs. Meanwhile, there is alot of people who would rather go home early and take it easy, but use the excuse that Uncle Sam is the culprit. Then we find out that the "nerdy & stupid" immigrants who never turned down a chance to make more money, are paying cash for their cars.[/QUOTE]Buffet's views are self serving.

He's for the death tax. Berkshire Hathaway bought a number of family owned businesses, because the families couldn't pay the death tax and so had to sell out.

Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend. And if memory serves me correctly, Berkshire receives an 85% tax deduction for any dividends it receives. So he doesn't indirectly pay a very high % tax on dividends by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway.

Finally, he doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, which is where practically all his wealth is held. So he doesn't pay much tax. Hell, it's possible his secretary not only pays a higher % of her income in tax, it's possible she pays more tax.

Many wealthy Democrats and some Republicans support higher tax rates because, like Buffet, they profit more from an inefficient system with higher tax rates and loopholes, or, like certain attorneys, they otherwise benefit from their party's policies.

It's a fact that a lot of people are going home early and taking it easy because of taxes, although more so in Western Europe than the USA. It's not just an excuse.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 418716]Buffet's views are self serving.

He's for the death tax. Berkshire Hathaway bought a number of family owned businesses, because the families couldn't pay the death tax and so had to sell out.

Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate. Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend. And if memory serves me correctly, Berkshire receives an 85% tax deduction for any dividends it receives. So he doesn't indirectly pay a very high % tax on dividends by virtue of his ownership in Berkshire Hathaway.

Finally, he doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, which is where practically all his wealth is held. So he doesn't pay much tax. Hell, it's possible his secretary not only pays a higher % of her income in tax, it's possible she pays more tax.

Many wealthy Democrats and some Republicans support higher tax rates because, like Buffet, they profit more from an inefficient system with higher tax rates and loopholes, or, like certain attorneys, they otherwise benefit from their party's policies.

It's a fact that a lot of people are going home early and taking it easy because of taxes, although more so in Western Europe than the USA. It's not just an excuse.[/QUOTE]So Buffett and other CEOs received mega payouts in the form of shares / dividends that are either tax exempted or taxed at a lower percentage. In any case, let's just say that the super rich whilst contributing a major share of tax revenues are paying at a lower percentage of their income than the average joe. On the other hand, the percentage of people not paying income taxes is ridiculous. Payroll and sales taxes are not income taxes. Tax reform is needed, I think we can all agree .

"I see the enemy, and it is us". What I was trying to allude earlier is that as a country, our values have decline. It is a cultural thing and it is driven by spending. We don't really have to live in Las Vegas or Washington to get addicted to spending money that we don't have. Instead of casinos, we have malls. To make it even easier, online. Our meals are getting bigger all the time, and our closets & garages are full of things that we got tired of. Savings, yeah, right. Paycheck to paycheck is the norm. Congress is just a reflection of us.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418719]"I see the enemy, and it is us". What I was trying to allude earlier is that as a country, our values have decline. It is a cultural thing and it is driven by spending. We don't really have to live in Las Vegas or Washington to get addicted to spending money that we don't have. Instead of casinos, we have malls. To make it even easier, online. Our meals are getting bigger all the time, and our closets & garages are full of things that we got tired of. Savings, yeah, right. Paycheck to paycheck is the norm. Congress is just a reflection of us.[/QUOTE]Great post. You've expressed similar thoughts before but not as eloquently. I'd stress the last sentence. Both the American public and the federal government have spent like there's no tomorrow.

Black Shirt,"Payroll Taxes" for employees are comprised of three parts, Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. While you can make the argument the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid and matched by the employer are to pay for future benefits there can be no argument the Federal Income Tax deducted from the employee's pay check is anything but INCOME TAX.

If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation.

[QUOTE=Esten; 418711]Lots of right-wing misinformation continuing here, not too surprised.

It's a spending problem AND a revenue problem, now moreso the latter. I've posted CBPP charts here before, and here's another look at the sources of our debt. Obama's spending is not the main cause, and no matter how many times Fox-bots repeat it, polls show even most Americans do not rank recent spending as the main cause. The top two contributors are the unfunded wars and the Bush Tax Cuts.

The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling.

[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/[/url]

Further, the Keynesian model as proven by the Stimulus was a success. No, it did not keep unemployment below 8% as predicted, but that prediction was made before the true depth of private sector job slashing became apparent. The Stimulus saved or created between 1. 5-3 Million jobs according to assessments from multiple economists, prevented unemployment from going above 11% and helped restore confidence in the private sector at a critical time. Of course if you listen to right wing politicians they all say it was a failure. But these are politicians. Economists say otherwise.

DEBT DEAL. The debt deal seems good to me. We have more work to do but it's a good start with real cuts. Some on the left are upset that entitlements are now more in play than tax increases, but I see it as part of a broader strategy. Romney is waiting in the wings with his "where are the jobs" campaign, which admittedly will be an uphill slog for Obama (through little fault of his own though). By moving to the right on both tax increases and entitlements, Obama has now ensured these will be focus points in 2012. Americans are going to see entitlements threatened and the rich continuing to get a free pass, which will motivate voters on an emotional level. Dems have data and reason on their side, but these are not enough with the American electorate. Many Dems think Obama has caved or conceded too much, but it's all part of a grand strategy because 2012 is indeed very significant. If Obama wins, PPACA is preserved and we get a big boost in revenue from Bush Tax Cuts expiring and taxes within PPACA. O'Reilly's memo tonight provided a hint that GOP strategists also understand this grand strategy. They know 2012 won't be just about jobs anymore, and they know they can't convince voters that spending cuts alone are the way to go to balance the budget (especially when almost 80% think we need a balanced approach with cuts and revenues). So we are going to hear a lot more now about how Republicans also agree we need more revenues, but the way to do it is with "Tax Reform" such as a Flat Tax. Of course what they won't tell you is that this will shift more tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class and poor. That would be an uphill sell, and Dems will be sure to expose right wing deception along the way.

Obama is shifting the 2012 debate and will harness the strong feelings Americans have about preserving entitlements and having a balanced approach to deficits.[/QUOTE]If John Keynes is your economic God, or if you think Arthur Lifer had it right, it makes no difference. These models are valid when the car is running down the road between the lines, not when you're driving in the ditch. Putting more gas in the car won't get you out of the ditch, nor will trying to draft the lead vehicle get you up that hill.

Of each dollar we spend. 42 cents is borrowed. We spend more than we get. Others have discussed this in these forums. We all know the numbers. Some of us actually understand them.

My friend Esten's New York progressive outlook is irrelevant; as are my conservative friends on this board for we won't do anything but talk. We join the talking, arguing, and cajoling like those in Congress, in the Administration, on Fox, MSNBC, and forums throughout the Internet. It won't get us out of the ditch. We are destined to get to a point where the gas gauge is near zero, the yellow light is on, and we can't get up the hill. Only then will we act. Only then will we make the right choice. However, it will be too late. The deal signed today is a joke. The Dow fell 265 points as an exclamation point. I've read this story before. It has an ugly ending. When we do make the right choice, stop spending, adjust the tax code, it will be too late. We then will divide the remaining pie, fighting for a piece like jackals. We will all move lower on Maslow's pyramid, progressive and conservative alike will fight for that scrap of meat to survive.

We are like the scorpion and the frog. It's our nature. For you see, we only make the right choice, when it's the only choice.

I forecast that your heros, be they Obama, Boener, Reid, Ryan, etc., will be recorded as fools by future historians.

Where is John Galt to save us?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418723]Black Shirt,"Payroll Taxes" for employees are comprised of three parts, Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax. While you can make the argument the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid and matched by the employer are to pay for future benefits there can be no argument the Federal Income Tax deducted from the employee's pay check is anything but INCOME TAX.

If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the clarification in regard to payroll / income tax.

I have to agree with you again Black Shirt, the deal passed on Monday in the House and Tuesday in the Senate is a joke and only kicks the can down the road one more time. The markets voted with a 265 point drop in the DOW. The markets were looking for significant cuts in spending; one rating firm even quantified it as being $4 Trillion. The only members of both houses being serious about cuts are the freshman and for their efforts they are now called 'terrorists'.

I think the car being in the ditch is not really an accurate metaphor for what is going on. Perhaps a more appropriate metaphor would be the country is in a boat with a leak which is slowly sinking, the true conservative crew is trying to bail water out of the boat to keep it afloat (ie smaller government and less spending) while the liberal crew is bailing water back into the boat (more spending and more government) and the passengers just stand around watching.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418730]The only members of both houses being serious about cuts are the freshman and for their efforts they are now called 'terrorists'.[/QUOTE]And they're being called "[i]terrorists[/i]" by liberal Democrats who won't even call the real terrorists "[i]terrorists[/i]".

Hi all:

I'm just back from eight days in Brazil, and even a couple days in Buenos Aires. Still not enough time. The debt wrangling was impossible to escape even down there.

I know there are many who are unhappy with the outcome. But, it all depends on your perspective. This is a huge win when compared with the absurd notion of handing Obama a blank check "clean" debt limit increase, or even a silly "balanced approach" that he later advocated. Remember "Don't call my bluff, Eric." Well, they called his bluff, and that was all it was. What a surprise. The guy couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.

It may not seem like much. $92 billion in reduced spending a year or, more accurately, a decrease in the increase in spending, isn't much. But, I think it needs to be placed in context. This is the start. There will be another debt limit fight in 2013. The terrain will have shifted dramatically by then, and there likely will be a much greater opportunity to put the country back on the right path at that time. This version was simply a rebuke to Obama and the Keynesian fools he's been listening to. Doing much more was not possible.

These are some big "IFs" but here goes: IF future Congress sticks to these cuts, IF the second round of cuts is put into place and is not illusory, and IF we can make more progress in 2013, then this all will have been worth it.

Obama's goal here was purely selfish and political. He wanted to put the matter off until after the election because he believed it would enhance his reelection prospects. Instead, the matter will begin heating up again during the election, and it will be a campaign theme. He's predictable. He'll argue for a "balanced approach" and "tax increases on millionaires, billionaires and corporate jet owners." The electorate already grew very tired of this windbag with each subsequent TV appearance the past few weeks. His job approval ratings declined from 55% to 40% during that time frame. Some was attributable to the bin Laden bounce he got, but not all. Most of the country is back to disliking him. Heck, if you reason like Esten, this insta-poll process means Obama ought to simply resign right now. Why wait for the election? The polls show he sucks at being President.

Obama's words will not rally his base. He's digging his own grave with the economy, his misplaced focus on healthcare, and his class warfare. Once he's out of office, then the adults can start to fix things, including with a balanced budget amendment. Until then, not much more than what was accomplished was possible.

Just my two cents.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418716]Buffet believes that dividends paid to individuals should be taxed at a higher rate.[/QUOTE]This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418712]So, federal politicians spent like drunken sailors both when Bush was president and when Obama was president. What's your point?[/QUOTE]That it's not just spending, but also revenue. And that most of our debt is due to conservative policies under Bush:

Huge Tax Cuts
Unfunded Wars
Loss of revenues due to Great Recession (a result of reckless free-market capitalism)

[QUOTE]The charts are a load of crap. They describe tax cuts as costs or government spending. That is bull shit.[/QUOTE]Wrong. Nowhere in that article are Bush Tax Cuts listed, described or portrayed as spending.

[QUOTE]Apparently when government forces me to pay 35% of what I make instead of 39. 6, the difference is spending. The government is spending money on me. Subsidizing me, because I don't pay enough. That 35% when added to a 10% state income tax and a sales tax and property taxes and, some day, a death tax, that just isn't enough. I'm evil. I'm a burden on society. As you say below, I'm getting a free pass.[/QUOTE]If you're upset about a 35% tax rate, you must have been seething when the top rate was 39.6% under Clinton.

Dems do not say the wealthy are evil. What they point out is that since Reagen, it is mainly the wealthy that have prospered the most. Middle class prosperity has been marginal. For example between 1979-2007: after-tax income grew +25% for the middle fifth and +281% for the top 1%. This is largely due to lowered tax rates. Dems say that if we have large debts to pay, there should be a shared sacrifice and that includes spending cuts AND tax increases on those who have prospered the most. That is a reasonable position, and is supported by close to 80% of Americans.

[QUOTE]We're experiencing European levels of unemployment for an extended period and you view that as a vindication of Keynsian economics?[/QUOTE]Like Germany? The success of the Stimulus is evidenced by the fact that it ended the recession quickly and that multiple independant economists estimate it created or saved 1. 5-3 Million jobs. The fact that unemployment is now stuck around 9. 1-9. 2% can be attributed to the winding down of Stimulus spending, reduced bank lending, reduced demand, and Big Business cutting to the bone and hoarding profits. There are many factors in play....

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 418685]The State of Texas faced a severe gap between expenditures and income. Despite liberal warnings of a catastrophic collapse of the state if the reductions in spending were enacted none of these dire warnings come to pass. Texas is doing fine, is experiencing greater growth in both business and employment than any other state in the nation.

Obama's experiment in Keynesian economic theory has been a complete failure.[/QUOTE]Funny you mentioned those things together. As it turns out, Perry used billions in federal stimulus money to pay 97% of Texas's budget shortfall in fiscal 2010. Keynes helped Perry.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418723]If you look at past posts, WW, Jackson, myself and many more agree with your statement the US is going down hill. You can blame this on the liberals and their idea that anything goes. No honor, no duty above to one's self, no self respect or respect for others, nothing that made the generation that fought WWII and become known as the greatest generation.[/QUOTE]"Anything goes" is more the philosophy of reckless free-market capitalism, which is the core cause of the Great Recession. Dems passed Dodd-Frank reform in response, which Republicans are now trying to weaken so they can go back to the good 'ol days.

Those with honor and a sense of duty are willing to step up and do something, like pay a little more in taxes to address our deficits. I see no honor in protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor.

The WWII generation had a great president (FDR) , higher tax rates, and an appreciation of the important role of government in society.

Doppel, your arguments are unusually weak lately. Maybe it's time for a vacation.

Esten. Bro. Dividends aren't Capital gains. Dividends are taxed at individual marginal rates. I think we should scrap the whole tax code and have a consumption tax. Let the individual decide, through his own consumption, how much tax he will pay. This would piss off a LOT of accountants and attorneys. Oh well. The "regressiveness" arguement against a consumption tax (The Fair Tax) is BS. It would force everyone (even tourists, dealers and hookers.) to participate, with no loopholes or offshore sanctuaries. Cheers-BF.

[QUOTE=Esten; 418739]This is hugely important. We need to eliminate the 15% capital gains scam giveaway to the wealthy. Capital gains should be taxed at one's personal federal income tax rate.

That it's not just spending, but also revenue. And that most of our debt is due to conservative policies under Bush:

Huge Tax Cuts.

Unfunded Wars.

Loss of revenues due to Great Recession (a result of reckless free-market capitalism)

Wrong. Nowhere in that article are Bush Tax Cuts listed, described or portrayed as spending.

If you're upset about a 35% tax rate, you must have been seething when the top rate was 39. 6% under Clinton.

Dems do not say the wealthy are evil. What they point out is that since Reagen, it is mainly the wealthy that have prospered the most. Middle class prosperity has been marginal. For example between 1979-2007: after-tax income grew +25% for the middle fifth and +281% for the top 1. This is largely due to lowered tax rates. Dems say that if we have large debts to pay, there should be a shared sacrifice and that includes spending cuts AND tax increases on those who have prospered the most. That is a reasonable position, and is supported by close to 80% of Americans.

Like Germany? The success of the Stimulus is evidenced by the fact that it ended the recession quickly and that multiple independant economists estimate it created or saved 1. 5-3 Million jobs. The fact that unemployment is now stuck around 9. 1-9. 2% can be attributed to the winding down of Stimulus spending, reduced bank lending, reduced demand, and Big Business cutting to the bone and hoarding profits. There are many factors in play.[/QUOTE]