Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story
Impeach Mullah Obama

Virginia Beach, VA

#809799 Nov 22, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Look,when will you right whiners accept the blame of this recession? It was primarily G W Bush backed by the Republicans in Congress that fomented this recession.
All you read here is post after post from you morons "OMG OMG the unemployment" "OMG OMG the food stamps"
I have news. If we did not have the Bush recession,these things would not be where they are today.
Obama took office just as the effects were mounting up. It took nearly a year to stop the destruction.
Since he has gained back the jobs lost in his first year as he worked to stop the damage. Our economy is growing.
So really, I have a deal. You idiots quit blaming Obama for the effects of this recession and I won't have to keep reminding who who fomented it.
Face it. The right would love us to have a balanced budget. You would love for this country to be where it was in 2001.
But yet, you are too stupid to know who took us off that path.
The economy's in the crapper and it's Obama's fault and everybody except your dumb ass knows it. And when is Mullah Obama going to come clean about the 4 people he was in involved in murdering in Benghazi?
Impeach Mullah Obama

Virginia Beach, VA

#809800 Nov 22, 2012
Welfare mammies and ghetto-rats - Remember us in your Thanksgiving prayer. "Dear Lord, thank you and the people who work and pay taxes for this free meal we are about to receive. Amen."
brown eyes

Roanoke, VA

#809802 Nov 22, 2012
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Democrats and Republicans alike.
Lily Boca Raton Fl

Boca Raton, FL

#809803 Nov 22, 2012
moshx wrote:
<quoted text> why you calling me dummy,dummy?you want fair, what I said was fair.
You lack the comprehension of the basic tenets of insurance

Life isn't fair, get over it
Lily Boca Raton Fl

Boca Raton, FL

#809804 Nov 22, 2012
Impeach Obama wrote:
<quoted text>Democrats want to throw children in the garbage. They abort over one million children every year. Why do Democrats hate children so much? Why do they want the government to fund the murder so many of them?
Another dummy
Lily Boca Raton Fl

Boca Raton, FL

#809805 Nov 22, 2012
brown eyes wrote:
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Democrats and Republicans alike.
Same to you Brown eyes
Not Real Sure

Hobbs, NM

#809806 Nov 22, 2012
Obama 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>If President Obama is allowed to serve a third term as many are advocating, this topic is still very much alive. Why is the President limited to two terms anyway? Makes no sense to me. If he's doing a good job we should keep him. If not, we can vote him out.
Vote him out ???? Vote him out ???? Can you Imagine A person voting out the only income they can get.....Really .... The only commercial the dems will hafta run in 2016 ,whoever it is....if Vladimir Putin Ran on the democratic ticket would be " If You Vote For The Republican, You will lose your welfare,food stamps, free insurance, free cell phone, Unemployment benefits, and have to get a job.........HaHaHa....vote him out....OMG, Not a chance in hell !!!!! The only way we will ever get our country back is when the money runs out, and the country falls....thats it...we have already passed the threshold ....Very Sad , But very true....
carol

Orlando, FL

#809807 Nov 22, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Look,when will you right whiners accept the blame of this recession? It was primarily G W Bush backed by the Republicans in Congress that fomented this recession.
All you read here is post after post from you morons "OMG OMG the unemployment" "OMG OMG the food stamps"
I have news. If we did not have the Bush recession,these things would not be where they are today.
Obama took office just as the effects were mounting up. It took nearly a year to stop the destruction.
Since he has gained back the jobs lost in his first year as he worked to stop the damage. Our economy is growing.
So really, I have a deal. You idiots quit blaming Obama for the effects of this recession and I won't have to keep reminding who who fomented it.
Face it. The right would love us to have a balanced budget. You would love for this country to be where it was in 2001.
But yet, you are too stupid to know who took us off that path.
Exactly what economic steps did Bush take or not take that caused the economy to sink into recession?

The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007 compared to a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office and well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

The GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% between 2001-2008. Bush left his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton.

I'll await your answer.

Happy Thanksgiving.
carol

Orlando, FL

#809808 Nov 22, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Look,when will you right whiners accept the blame of this recession? It was primarily G W Bush backed by the Republicans in Congress that fomented this recession.
All you read here is post after post from you morons "OMG OMG the unemployment" "OMG OMG the food stamps"
I have news. If we did not have the Bush recession,these things would not be where they are today.
Obama took office just as the effects were mounting up. It took nearly a year to stop the destruction.
Since he has gained back the jobs lost in his first year as he worked to stop the damage. Our economy is growing.
So really, I have a deal. You idiots quit blaming Obama for the effects of this recession and I won't have to keep reminding who who fomented it.
Face it. The right would love us to have a balanced budget. You would love for this country to be where it was in 2001.
But yet, you are too stupid to know who took us off that path.
As someone else said:

The financial crisis was a perfect storm of liberal policy about subprime mortgages that went amuck with unscrupulous mortgage brokers, Congressmen like Barney Frank allowing us to believe everything was ok with Fannie Mae, and Wall St bundling credit default swaps that should have been monitored by the incompletent SEC. This coupled with unqualified pension fund managers trying to get something for nothing by purchasing these phoney mortgage bundles, etc. You can't leave out the American public who signed purchase agreements and mortgage loan documents that spelled out the risks very clearly but no one, at the time, cared to read the fine print.

To simply "blame Bush" is much too simplistic and naive.
RUSH10ME

Keysville, VA

#809809 Nov 22, 2012
lily boca raton fl wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201 2/11/19/intoxicated-patients-m ore-likely-to-survive-traumati c-injuries-study-finds/
Intoxicated patients more likely to survive traumatic injuries, study finds
If this is true an atom bomb could detonate in your mouth and you would survive !
RUSH10ME

Keysville, VA

#809810 Nov 22, 2012
Not Real Sure wrote:
<quoted text>Vote him out ???? Vote him out ???? Can you Imagine A person voting out the only income they can get.....Really .... The only commercial the dems will hafta run in 2016 ,whoever it is....if Vladimir Putin Ran on the democratic ticket would be " If You Vote For The Republican, You will lose your welfare,food stamps, free insurance, free cell phone, Unemployment benefits, and have to get a job.........HaHaHa....vote him out....OMG, Not a chance in hell !!!!! The only way we will ever get our country back is when the money runs out, and the country falls....thats it...we have already passed the threshold ....Very Sad , But very true....
Yes , sad but true.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#809811 Nov 22, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what economic steps did Bush take or not take that caused the economy to sink into recession?
The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007 compared to a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office and well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.
The GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% between 2001-2008. Bush left his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton.
I'll await your answer.
Happy Thanksgiving.
2004

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes

....the exceptionally poor job growth of recent years suggests the Administration’s tax cuts have largely failed to accomplish one of its stated policy goals.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm...

read it.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#809812 Nov 22, 2012
The New Republican Tax Policy
By Bruce Bartlett

Although it is commonly believed that the Laffer curve – the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves – is the core Republican idea about tax policy, this is wrong. The true core idea is something called starve-the-beast – the idea that tax cuts will force cuts in spending precisely because they reduce revenue. But there are slight indications that some conservatives have awakened to the reality that not only does starve-the-beast not work, but it also leads to higher spending.

The notion came into being in the 1970s to allow conservative Republican economists to reconcile their support for a balanced budget with their party’s intense desire to cut taxes without worrying about the deficit. Proposition 13 in California had proven unmistakably that voters didn’t much care whether spending was cut; they just wanted lower taxes.

I have traced the origins of Republican starve-the-beast theory to testimony by Alan Greenspan before the Senate Finance Committee on July 14, 1978 – just weeks after the passage of Proposition 13 on June 6. In explaining why he supported the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which proposed an across-the-board tax rate reduction of 30 percent, while also supporting deficit reduction, Mr. Greenspan said:

Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today’s environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenues available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending.

Among those who totally bought into this theory was Ronald Reagan. When criticized for proposing a tax cut in 1981 even though the deficit was high and rising, he replied in a national television address on Feb. 5, 1981:

Over the past decades we’ve talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we’ve even taken a run at doing that. But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn’t be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance.

In 2001, George W. Bush justified his tax cut on starve-the-beast grounds, saying it would constitute a “fiscal straitjacket for Congress.” According to the journalist Ron Suskind’s book,“The Price of Loyalty,” the Bush adviser Karl Rove often invoked the starve-the-beast approach as “conservative economic theology” in White House meetings. By 2003, using deficits strategically to slash the size of government was widely considered to be party doctrine among Republicans.

During the Obama administration, the principal enforcer of that doctrine among Republicans is the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. He continually argues against tax increases because they feed the beast and lead to higher spending. As he put it in an Op-Ed page column last year in The New York Times,“Raising taxes is what politicians do instead of reforming and reducing the cost of government.”

The problem for Republicans, as is so often the case, is that the real-world impact of their theories doesn’t measure up to their theories. There was no reduction in spending as a share of the gross domestic product despite a sharp fall in revenue as a share of G.D.P. during the Reagan years. By the time Reagan left office the spending/G.D.P. ratio was about the same as it was in Jimmy Carter’s last year: 21.7 percent in 1980 vs. 21.3 percent in 1988.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#809813 Nov 22, 2012
During the George W. Bush administration, spending increased sharply even as revenue collapsed. Revenue as a share of G.D.P. fell to 17.5 percent in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000, yet spending rose to 20.1 percent in 2006, before the economic crisis hit, and 20.7 percent in 2008, from 18.2 percent of G.D.P.

In short, we have tested starve-the-beast theory in the laboratory, and it has failed miserably. At least a few conservatives have had the courage to acknowledge that lowering the tax cost of spending may be a culprit. After all, the main reason to oppose higher spending is that it will lead to higher taxes. But if people can have tax cuts and higher spending at the same time, why should they not have their cake and eat it too?

In 2007, Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review made this perceptive observation about starve-the-beast theory:

The theory made sense so long as the maximum politically acceptable deficit was an independent variable. But if in fact the effort to cut taxes increased the political system’s tolerance for deficits, then spending could go up. And it’s easy to see how cutting taxes could make deficits more acceptable. As for practice: The last decade has not been kind to the idea that cutting taxes would restrain spending.

The late economist William Niskanen of the Cato Institute was another pioneer on the right in recognizing the perversity of starve-the-beast theory. His work has been revived by The Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson in a new article for the conservative magazine. This is significant because The Standard often sets the agenda for Republicans. This article may signal a change in thinking about whether tax increases may be a better way of starving the beast than tax cuts.

At the risk of reading the tea leaves too closely, I think Mr. Ferguson’s article needs to be read in conjunction with comments made by The Standard’s editor William Kristol on “Fox News Sunday” on Nov. 11. Said Mr. Kristol:“You know what? It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires. It really won’t, I don’t think.”

Mr. Kristol is not a fool and can read the polls as easily as I can; he knows Republicans are holding a losing hand on taxes. A Nov. 14 Gallup poll shows the percentage of Americans favoring a spending-cuts-only approach to the deficit has fallen in half, to 10 percent from 20 percent last year; the percentage willing to accept higher taxes to reduce the deficit has risen to 86 percent from 73 percent.

Taxes are going to rise; that is no longer in doubt. The question for Republicans is what can they get in return. Starve-the-beast is dead.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/...
Not Real Sure

Hobbs, NM

#809814 Nov 22, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone else said:
The financial crisis was a perfect storm of liberal policy about subprime mortgages that went amuck with unscrupulous mortgage brokers, Congressmen like Barney Frank allowing us to believe everything was ok with Fannie Mae, and Wall St bundling credit default swaps that should have been monitored by the incompletent SEC. This coupled with unqualified pension fund managers trying to get something for nothing by purchasing these phoney mortgage bundles, etc. You can't leave out the American public who signed purchase agreements and mortgage loan documents that spelled out the risks very clearly but no one, at the time, cared to read the fine print.
To simply "blame Bush" is much too simplistic and naive.
VERY WELL PUT !!!!
Not Real Sure

Hobbs, NM

#809815 Nov 22, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
The New Republican Tax Policy
By Bruce Bartlett
Although it is commonly believed that the Laffer curve – the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves – is the core Republican idea about tax policy, this is wrong. The true core idea is something called starve-the-beast – the idea that tax cuts will force cuts in spending precisely because they reduce revenue. But there are slight indications that some conservatives have awakened to the reality that not only does starve-the-beast not work, but it also leads to higher spending.
The notion came into being in the 1970s to allow conservative Republican economists to reconcile their support for a balanced budget with their party’s intense desire to cut taxes without worrying about the deficit. Proposition 13 in California had proven unmistakably that voters didn’t much care whether spending was cut; they just wanted lower taxes.
I have traced the origins of Republican starve-the-beast theory to testimony by Alan Greenspan before the Senate Finance Committee on July 14, 1978 – just weeks after the passage of Proposition 13 on June 6. In explaining why he supported the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which proposed an across-the-board tax rate reduction of 30 percent, while also supporting deficit reduction, Mr. Greenspan said:
Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today’s environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenues available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending.
Among those who totally bought into this theory was Ronald Reagan. When criticized for proposing a tax cut in 1981 even though the deficit was high and rising, he replied in a national television address on Feb. 5, 1981:
Over the past decades we’ve talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we’ve even taken a run at doing that. But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn’t be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance.
In 2001, George W. Bush justified his tax cut on starve-the-beast grounds, saying it would constitute a “fiscal straitjacket for Congress.” According to the journalist Ron Suskind’s book,“The Price of Loyalty,” the Bush adviser Karl Rove often invoked the starve-the-beast approach as “conservative economic theology” in White House meetings. By 2003, using deficits strategically to slash the size of government was widely considered to be party doctrine among Republicans.
During the Obama administration, the principal enforcer of that doctrine among Republicans is the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. He continually argues against tax increases because they feed the beast and lead to higher spending. As he put it in an Op-Ed page column last year in The New York Times,“Raising taxes is what politicians do instead of reforming and reducing the cost of government.”
The problem for Republicans, as is so often the case, is that the real-world impact of their theories doesn’t measure up to their theories. There was no reduction in spending as a share of the gross domestic product despite a sharp fall in revenue as a share of G.D.P. during the Reagan years. By the time Reagan left office the spending/G.D.P. ratio was about the same as it was in Jimmy Carter’s last year: 21.7 percent in 1980 vs. 21.3 percent in 1988.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/...
And what is your point EXACTLY ????? It simply states as to what I can See....it does not matter how much you tax, The government will just spend it anyway......so why raise taxes..... I do not think you read this before you posted,,,,,It does not help your cause...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#809816 Nov 22, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone else said:
The financial crisis was a perfect storm of liberal policy about subprime mortgages that went amuck with unscrupulous mortgage brokers, Congressmen like Barney Frank allowing us to believe everything was ok with Fannie Mae, and Wall St bundling credit default swaps that should have been monitored by the incompletent SEC. This coupled with unqualified pension fund managers trying to get something for nothing by purchasing these phoney mortgage bundles, etc. You can't leave out the American public who signed purchase agreements and mortgage loan documents that spelled out the risks very clearly but no one, at the time, cared to read the fine print.
To simply "blame Bush" is much too simplistic and naive.
Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's first chief economic adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Bush meet housing goals.

"No one wanted to stop that bubble," Lindsay said. "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/wo...
brown eyes

Christiansburg, VA

#809817 Nov 22, 2012
Democrats are the party of activism, the party that says government can make you richer and smarter.
Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it. Just look at the do nothing US Congress.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#809818 Nov 22, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Look,when will you right whiners accept the blame of this recession? It was primarily G W Bush backed by the Republicans in Congress that fomented this recession.
All you read here is post after post from you morons "OMG OMG the unemployment" "OMG OMG the food stamps"
I have news. If we did not have the Bush recession,these things would not be where they are today.
Obama took office just as the effects were mounting up. It took nearly a year to stop the destruction.
Since he has gained back the jobs lost in his first year as he worked to stop the damage. Our economy is growing.
So really, I have a deal. You idiots quit blaming Obama for the effects of this recession and I won't have to keep reminding who who fomented it.
Face it. The right would love us to have a balanced budget. You would love for this country to be where it was in 2001.
But yet, you are too stupid to know who took us off that path.
April, 2015:

"Boy, that Bush recession was a LOT worse than we thought. Even though I've 'created' 7 million new jobs (40 million removed from the workforce), raised taxes, fees, penalties, increased regulations and infused billions more into the green energy sector, I've held gas down to $7.85 a gal, and kept the economy roaring along at a .9% growth rate. But, there's still work to do. What I need is a third term so I can sustain all the good things I've done for America."

Barrack Hussein Obama
Not Real Sure

Hobbs, NM

#809819 Nov 22, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
The New Republican Tax Policy
By Bruce Bartlett
Although it is commonly believed that the Laffer curve – the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves – is the core Republican idea about tax policy, this is wrong. The true core idea is something called starve-the-beast – the idea that tax cuts will force cuts in spending precisely because they reduce revenue. But there are slight indications that some conservatives have awakened to the reality that not only does starve-the-beast not work, but it also leads to higher spending.
The notion came into being in the 1970s to allow conservative Republican economists to reconcile their support for a balanced budget with their party’s intense desire to cut taxes without worrying about the deficit. Proposition 13 in California had proven unmistakably that voters didn’t much care whether spending was cut; they just wanted lower taxes.
I have traced the origins of Republican starve-the-beast theory to testimony by Alan Greenspan before the Senate Finance Committee on July 14, 1978 – just weeks after the passage of Proposition 13 on June 6. In explaining why he supported the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which proposed an across-the-board tax rate reduction of 30 percent, while also supporting deficit reduction, Mr. Greenspan said:
Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today’s environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenues available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending.
Among those who totally bought into this theory was Ronald Reagan. When criticized for proposing a tax cut in 1981 even though the deficit was high and rising, he replied in a national television address on Feb. 5, 1981:
Over the past decades we’ve talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we’ve even taken a run at doing that. But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn’t be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance.
In 2001, George W. Bush justified his tax cut on starve-the-beast grounds, saying it would constitute a “fiscal straitjacket for Congress.” According to the journalist Ron Suskind’s book,“The Price of Loyalty,” the Bush adviser Karl Rove often invoked the starve-the-beast approach as “conservative economic theology” in White House meetings. By 2003, using deficits strategically to slash the size of government was widely considered to be party doctrine among Republicans.
During the Obama administration, the principal enforcer of that doctrine among Republicans is the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. He continually argues against tax increases because they feed the beast and lead to higher spending. As he put it in an Op-Ed page column last year in The New York Times,“Raising taxes is what politicians do instead of reforming and reducing the cost of government.”
The problem for Republicans, as is so often the case, is that the real-world impact of their theories doesn’t measure up to their theories. There was no reduction in spending as a share of the gross domestic product despite a sharp fall in revenue as a share of G.D.P. during the Reagan years. By the time Reagan left office the spending/G.D.P. ratio was about the same as it was in Jimmy Carter’s last year: 21.7 percent in 1980 vs. 21.3 percent in 1988.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/...
And what EXACTLY is your point ???? It clearly states the obvious.....The more you tax the more our government will spend....so why Tax more......thats stupid ....you made our point for us....maybe you should read and decipher your own threads before you post....you absolutely stepped on your d*ck this time

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 min gcaveman1 47,056
A short math question. I will reply with answer... 4 min 1-2ChangeBulb 9
Chicago: Urine Trouble: How Can the CTA Keep It... 14 min BigjigsDigUrine 7
Amy - 9-29-2014 34 min Mister Tonka 33
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 38 min Eric 69,537
Rattlesnake Logic 42 min LogicThatBITES 4
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 58 min Cali Girl 2014 50,053
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 178,612
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr door left open wa... 98,367

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]