American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;419210]No Esten you did not use the exact words but though you attempt to use polite terms the intent and meaning are the same.[/QUOTE]Good to see you admit at least part of your error. You are still wrong on the intent. My point is absolutely not about whether you are good to your employees or not, it seems you are. My point would be the same whether you passed a tax increase onto your employees or your customers. And the point is this: you object to doing anything more than you are doing now to help address our country's debt. You have plenty of ideas about how [i]others[/i] can help, but believe you are entitled to an exception. IMO that simply makes you self-interested, and no patriot.

[QUOTE]Yea that's right buddy I'm right up there with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett et al raking in the dough. Better check your facts again, I'm in the top 6% not the top 2% but what is the difference between $200k per year and $2 million and up per year when we are talking politics with a flaming liberal socialist.[/QUOTE]Check my facts OK....

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416733]I earn over $250K, own my own business, employ 22 accountants / CPAs / office staff, drive a 5 year old car and an 11 year old truck, live in a nice home but believe me I am damn sure not 'rich'. As one of those lunk head small business owners who would get caught in Obama's tax hike let me tell you what will happen.

I currently provide healthcare benefits for my employees, three weeks paid leave, paid continuing education allowance, and a 401 (k) which includes Safe Harbor contributions of 3% with an additional minimum of 3% and maximum of 9% in Profit Sharing depending on the profitability of the business year.

Well when Obama hits me with higher personal taxes here is what goes at a minimum: one week of paid leave, continuing education allowance and when ObamaCare kicks in probably healthcare as it appears to be cheaper to pay the fine than insure the employees but we still don't know for sure since HHS / IRS are still writing the rules.[/QUOTE]Hmmm. Before it was $250K+ (in the top 2%) , now its 200K. Not that I care much about your personal finances, but you're the one posting this (inconsistent) information. Check my facts? You put your foot in your mouth once again.

Perhaps you were bluffing before, so you could show us how harmful your tax increases would be to your business. At 200K, your taxes aren't going up and all that 'harm' is pure fantasy.

[QUOTE]Esten are you now you are trying to tell us the nearly 50% of the nation that does not pay income tax are living at the poverty level? Right on Comrade![/QUOTE]Nope. All of the people affected by your proposal are not living in poverty. But all people living in poverty (who have income) would be affected.

[QUOTE]No Esten, the reason the debt ceiling debacle was bad for the nation was because Congress and Obama could not agree to cut a minimum of $4 trillion from the budget. A figure the rating agencies put out there nearly two months before the 'debacle' began. The problem was businesses and the world fininancial markets wanted to see the federal budget reigned in and it did not happen.[/QUOTE]Keep fooling yourself, the amount of the debt agreement was secondary to the uncertainty over what might happen if the limit wasn't raised. It was all over the news, I guess you missed it. As far as the $4T, that's exactly what Obama was pushing for. Repubs refused because they made a pledge not to raise taxes, contrary to majority public opinion. Republicans pushed for a smaller deal than $4T with cuts alone. Shouldn't you blame them?

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 419216]I think esten should retire to his double wide, collect his food stamps and the remaining 10 days of his unemployment insurance and bid us a final farewell.

On the other hand, we could look at estens nonsense as comedy relief and the product of too many acid trips during his youth.[/QUOTE]Dude, I am still young and living the life!

When I wake up at 3pm, I head down to the beach with my surfboard to catch some waves and rays. Then I come back home and take a nap. When I wake up again I toss a few pop tarts in the toaster for dinner and turn on MSNBC to watch Hardball and my other favorite shows. In the evening I cook a splif, connect to AP and search for 'El Alamo'. You post so many variations of 'Obama can't fight his way out of a paper bag' it's hysterical! Once, I laughed so hard I shit my pants. Then I relax with some chocolate milk and watch my favorite videos of Obama on youtube before I go to bed.

Peace out....

Esten.

I am glad you are not taking my posts seriously. I am stuck in Key west for another week or so and have nothing better to do than post on this forum. When I return to Paraguay Obama, the national debt and the price of rice in China will be the farthest thing from my mind.

[QUOTE=Esten; 419217]Good to see you admit at least part of your error. You are still wrong on the intent. My point is absolutely not about whether you are good to your employees or not, it seems you are. My point would be the same whether you passed a tax increase onto your employees or your customers. And the point is this: you object to doing anything more than you are doing now to help address our country's debt. You have plenty of ideas about how [i]others[/i] Can help, but believe you are entitled to an exception. IMO that simply makes you self-interested, and no patriot.

Check my facts OK.

Hmmm. Before it was $250K+ (in the top 2%) , now its 200K. Not that I care much about your personal finances, but you're the one posting this (inconsistent) information. Check my facts? You put your foot in your mouth once again.

Perhaps you were bluffing before, so you could show us how harmful your tax increases would be to your business. At 200K, your taxes aren't going up and all that 'harm' is pure fantasy.[/QUOTE]

Esten, I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain tax code to you or what an LLC is since you don't seem to grasp the financial operations of a business beyond taxing it.


This year it appears my gross income will be down due to clients reducing their expenses and having given discounts to retain clients where necessary, something I doubt you understand. That notwithstanding, I don't know what graph you are looking at but neither $200K nor $250k is in the top 2% of income. I'm sure you can come up with something somewhere from a liberal site which will support your contention but neither it nor you are in touch with reality.


Esten permit me to provide you with an example of your rhetoric.

Obama and you are up an unsanitary tributary with no means of locomotion.

More succinctly the literal translation is:

Obama and you are up shit creek without a paddle.

I hope you get the point.

I have become weary of your and most liberal's attempt to shift your perceived guilt over conditions you perceive as unfair to those who are productive and readily accept responsibility of their actions and their lives. Using this as an excuse to plunder and pillage from the productive the fruits of their labors to ease your perceived guilt to feed the leaches on the body politic.

Esten, you seem so ready to criticize and pass judgment on others, what is your financial situation?

Esten, while you rail against conservatives and independents no one is stopping you from writing a check as big as you may wish to 'share the sacrifice'.

Go for it big guy. You can post a copy of it on the board so we the unwashed and unwilling can marvel at your largess

Should voters be blamed for the divided government today, Democratic president, or something else? Unclear to me.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 419211]If you really want to know who is to blame for the economic mess we are in, it is us, the voters. The voters are the equivalent of a manager of a baseball team. We decide who plays first base, who bats cleanup, who pinch hits etc.

Unfortuneately, during the last election, when the bases were loaded and we were in the hole a couple of runs, we looked at the lineup and made a peculiar decision. We had Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Dimaggio, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and Ted Williams available to pinch hit but we sent the scrawny ballboy, who wasn't sure what end of the bat to hold, up to the plate.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419222]Should voters be blamed for the divided government today, Democratic president, or something else? Unclear to me.[/QUOTE]Hi MP.

Let me clear that up for you.

The voters should be blamed for hiring an inexperienced college professor to be the chief executive officer of the largest organization in the world.

I would also add that the people who hired this guy should themselves be fired for making such a poor management decision, but on reflection I realize that many of them have.

Thanks,

Jackson

OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 419237]Hi MP.

Let me clear that up for you.

The voters should be blamed for hiring an inexperienced college professor to be the chief executive officer of the largest organization in the world.

I would also add that the people who hired this guy should themselves be fired for making such a poor management decision, but on reflection I realize that many of them have.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

I hate to say it, but it is obvious Obama is a complete fraud. Obama's real calling in life is.

1) drug dealer.

2) evangelist defrauding gullible retirees.

3) selling swampland in the everglades.

4) selling miracle exercise machines which turn gorditos into Charlie Atlas.

5) selling penny stocks which were worthless yesterday, are worthless today and will be worthless tomorrow.

Obama is a fraud. Wake up and smell the roses.

Obama is a disgrace. Supporters of Obama are retards looking at a donkey and trying to call it a racehorse. And these retards put him in the White House.

The least supporters of Obama could do it pony up and admit they elected and imbelcile / moron / idiot

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419238]OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.[/QUOTE]God almighty. How could anyone f* up the economy more than Obama. Unemployment which will not recover, debt downgrades and a dollar which has the value of toilet paper.

If my dog Rocky had been elected President the unemployment rate would be lower than it is today, the US dollar would have some value, and our debt would not have been downgraded and the laughing stock of the world.

However, the real issue is that Obama, no matter how long that idiot is in office, will never address the crisis in unemployemt. Obama is clueless.

How can the supporters of Obama look at this donkey and continue to call him a racehorse.

This is surreal. How much longer can we look at this idiot and think he has a plan.

Do yourself a favor. dump Obama and put up credible Democratic candidate for the presidency.

Don't fret about Obama. Obama's future is in selling street drugs, becoming an evangelist and stealing from gullible retirees, selling penny stocks, selling swamland in the everglades or being the front man for miracle exercise machines and worthless diet pills.

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419238]OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.[/QUOTE]This question is a variation on the theme that the White House and various liberal politicians, commentators and bloggers have started asking. Two years ago, Obama was going to save the country. The Stimulus was essential. ObamaCare was going to reduce the deficit. Obama was going to save us from too-big-to-fail banks. His "smart" policies would soon end the recession and start us growing again. Now, all of this has failed. The Emperor has no clothes. His "smart" policies are revealed for what they truly are: Dumb.

So, now the Left is trying to switch the debate. They implicitly concede that Obama's policies haven't worked, but they either argue that it would have been worse without Obama, or they ask "What could anyone have done differently?"

Of course, there's no way to definitively rebut this. It's impossible to 'prove' a negative. One would have to go back in time, substitute in McCain and legitimate policies, and then demonstrate the effect. Short of that, it's all argument. There have been many responses on what Obama screwed up. But, the proof is in the pudding. Obama's policies have not succeeded. Whether they caused the current malaise (Jimmy Carter's word) or not is open to debate, but the arguments that resonate with the public clearly are not on Obama's side, as evidenced by his abysmal approval ratings.

I'll list my three major failures, each of which McCain would either not have supported or would undoubtedly have done differently:

[b]1. The Stimulus:[/b] Obama used the so-called stimulus as a mechanism to pay back his supporters. He siphoned federal funds and gave it to state and local governments which overwhelmingly consist of unionized workers, green groups, and allocated other portions to supposedly 'shovel-ready' projects. He could have allocated these fund to WPA style projects, but that wouldn't have put money as directly in the hands of his supporters. As a consequence, governments used the funds to prop up their bloated bureaucracies for an an additional 1-2 years. They didn't create any jobs. These funds just let state and local governments kick the can down the road for an additional 12-18 months until the new money ran out. The result? Now that the money's run dry, they've still got to address their problems, but they're a bit worse off because their unfunded liabilities are that much larger. One further irony is that these sectors are now contributing greater to the unemployment rate that Obama is responsible for. Like Cash for Clunkers, he just pushed the consequences further out, but his stimulus did nothing to help. As for 'green jobs, ' they've been an unmitigated disaster. The only benefit is that they exist as just one more example of how government fails when it tries to intervene like this. And, Obama's stimulus also proved that it's one thing to say you're allocating funds to shovel ready projects, and another thing to actually do so. There were many other failure points associated with the Stimulus, but the above is a good start.

[b]2. ObamaCare:[/b] As with the Stimulus, there are many failure points here. But I will cite just two. First, the approach was pathetic. Obama shares blame with his Democratic Congress on this. After promising to have hearings on CSPAN and to be the most open government ever, Democrats used dirty, backroom dealings to ram this through. This was the beginning of the end for Obama and ObamaCare. These dirty dealings ranged from things like the 'cornhusker kickback, ' to the secret deals he cut with pharmaceutical companies and insurers, to the post-enactment waiver process, to the parliamentary reconciliation process used to get this passed after Scott Brown took Kennedy's seat. At the end of the day, this was the filthiest piece of legislation that ever came out of Congress. Then, the way they tried to sell it to the American public was pathetic. They had the CBO score the plan as deficit reducing based on 10 years of revenue and 6 years of costs. As everyone knows, the CBO is supposed to be neutral. That doesn't mean it's competent, however, and previous CBO estimates on the cost of social legislation have been wildly inaccurate, invariably erring on the wrong side of the cost equation. But, Obama gerry-rigged the outcome with a garbage-in, garbage-out methodology. This further contributed to the filthy nature of this garbage dressed up as a social program, and it undermined any confidence the public had that this administration was going to be 'different' in a positive way.

The second biggest problem with ObamaCare is the uncertainty it has created. Leave aside for the moment the obvious fact that this social legislation will impose huge additional costs on businesses. Businesses can deal with that if they know what those costs are. It may represent another millstone around the neck of many small businesses, but there is benefit to knowing whether your company will sink or swim. Aside from that, however, Obama and Democrats included the individual mandate and no savings clause in the legislation. Despite what liberal scholars said early on, it is obvious at this point that the individual mandate is of dubious legitimacy. It may be upheld; it may be struck down. This is the sort of uncertainty that kills businesses, especially for something like this that makes up such a large portion of overhead. Businesses don't know what it will cost or even if they will ever have to deal with ObamaCare. As an example of how this affects business, I'll offer this: My business has to bid on various different contracts each year. They generally last for 3-4 years or longer, and each contract usually represents $30-$40 million or more. The bidding process requires that each bidder assess his costs today, and project costs into the future. I can't do that right now with health care costs. I know that if ObamaCare isn't repealed, there will be no choice but to dump our health plan. That's because the penalties included in ObamaCare – even for employers offering coverage – are prohibitive. My company and many others will find themselves in the same boat. But, that doesn't solve the problem, because there's no way to get a good fix on what it will cost to dump your medical plan, either. The result is uncertainty. It's difficult to bid on anything because you don't know whether you'll be pricing yourself out of the market or driving yourself out of business in three years. If we were talking about the cost of paperclips, it would be a different matter. But, this is a substantial expense that is now totally gray, which is a significant problem for any business that has to price its products or services.

[b]3. Miscellaneous Market Interference Programs:[/b] This includes TARP, Cash for Clunkers, Dodd-Frank, the first-time homebuyer credits, the CIT bailout (followed by bankruptcy) , the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the payroll credit, the unemployment hiring credit, the continued extension of unemployment benefits, and many more. These last three did nothing to revive employment or the economy, yet they formed the cornerstone of Obama's 'jobs' speech. There are many, many more that can be put in this category. Most of Obama's stimulus-lite programs suffer from the same basic flaw: They rely on Keynesian, trickle-up economic theory that just doesn't work. If McCain did nothing, absolutely nothing, we would be far better off today. McCain was certainly not a great candidate, but he did not share Obama's vision (or illusion) that government can solve all problems and should stick it's nose into everyone's business to the greatest extent possible. That's debatable, but it's a fundamental Left-Right difference, so I feel safe in saying that McCain would not have butted in as frequently as Obama, and would not have governed from the ill-founded premise on which Obama purports to govern.

There are many, many other areas that could be highlighted: The favors Obama owes Big Labor, which have stifled job creation; Obama's failure to pass free trade agreements, which he has now larded with more favors for Big Labor; his confidence sapping "millionaires and billionaires" rhetoric, which stifles capital investment; his appointment and reliance of incompetent political advisors, such as Tim Geitner and many others; his crony capitalism; his enshrinement of too-big-to-fail. But, I'm sure there is a character limit here at AP, and anyone who has made it this far will appreciate conclusion, so I'll save all those for another post.

I think Obama had a plan and so far Obama has been pretty successful in putting his plan in place.

Plan #1:

Downgrade American debt. Almost an unthinkable task considering that the USA has had Triple AAA debt rating for centuries. However, Obama almost effortlessly, with grace and style, was able to downgrade america's debt in a matter of months. And, not only that, Obama has put in place further downgrades of america's debt with his job stimulus plan #2 which should be correctly categorized as Obama's debt downgrade plan #2.

Do not underestimate what Obama was able to do. Downgrading america's debt is the equivalent of running a 2 minute mile, swimming the Atlantic Ocean in 12 hours or leaping Mt. Everest in a single bound. Almost unthinkable to us mere mortals but not to "the one"

2) Plan #2.

Reduce america's industrial output to somewhere between the belgium congo and zimbabwe. This is progressing nicely and should be a reality within months.

3) Plan #3.

Increasing hunger, starvation and bloated bellies in the United States to as level that surpasses the Sudan and Somalia. Again, Obama is on top of this.

However, I will always be in awe of Obama because he has been able to move forward with his agenda while maintaining the braindead support of millions of supporters who resemble zombies from 'the night of the living dead'. On second thought, maybe Obama's supporters are the actual cast members of 'the night of the living dead'

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419238]OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Stan Da Man;419251]If McCain did nothing, absolutely nothing, we would be far better off today.[/QUOTE]That's your answer.

Mongers-

Why can't somebody pull Colin Powell out of retirement and have him run for the Republican presidential nomination? He is a level-headed middle of the road guy with strong leadership credentials and experience. Yes, I did support Obama v. McCain (PALIN) ; however, it is quite clear that Obama is not doing a competent job at this time and does not deserve to be re-elected. The only good things he has accomplished, IMO, were saving GM and killing OBL; everything else has pretty much been a disaster. If the Republicans nominate George Bush's degenerate twin (Rick Perry) we very well might get stuck with four more years of economic quagmire and poorly timed and executed legislation that is likely in another Obama term. In Obama's defense, the international debt crisis that is about to bring down the house is NOT his fault and the housing crisis that initiated the current downturn is also not of his making. However, with a better chief executive at the helm, the US economy would surely be in a better place than it is today.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Here is a concise summary of what Doppelganger has told us in the discussion about his business, paraphrased:

[i][b]I can't explain how Obama is hurting my business, but he is, and he's going down.[/b][/i]

[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;419238]OK. What are the indicators suggesting that McCain would have done better than Obama on economy? Thanks.[/QUOTE]As a Republican president McCain probably would have passed a smaller stimulus. Not only were economists pushing for a strong stimulus package in January 2009, so was the US Chamber of Commerce, which represents 3 million businesses. USCoC president Tom Donahue said back then,"What we are talking about is a defibrillator. We are trying to shock the economy."

A smaller stimulus would have been very bad for the country. In January 2009 when the details were being hammered out, people knew big layoffs were in progress and would continue. At the time it was predicted the Recovery Act would keep unemployment below 8%. But everybody underestimated just how deep the job slashing would be in 2009. Hindsight is 20-20, and economists now understand the Recovery Act was too small. Still, economists estimate the Recovery Act created or saved 2-3 Million jobs, and lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7%-1.8%.

If McCain had approved a stimulus half the size of the Recovery Act, by the above measures the unemployment rate would now be closer to 10% with up to 1.5 Million more people unemployed.

If McCain had done nothing, which is what would have happened under Tea Party philosophy, not only would there not have been a stimulus, but unspent TARP funds would likely not have been spent either. As a result we would have entered a full-blown Depression.

If you need any further proof about the Stimulus, have a look at the chart in the article below. Every time you hear a conservative say that the Stimulus was a failure, think of this chart.

GOP Derides Obama Jobs Plan As 'Second Stimulus, ' Ignoring Success Of The First
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/09/315347/gop-second-stimulus/[/url]

There is a known psychological technique in which by repeating a lie often enough, people with weak minds start to believe it as fact. When people state the Stimulus was a failure, they are either practicing this psychological technique, or showing they have become a victim to it. Just tonight on TV, Rick Perry said that the Stimulus created zero (0) jobs. You can be sure some people in the audience at this Tea Party debate believed him.

Better than listening to what the politicians say (on either side), listen to what economists say.