President Obama

How is president Obama doing so far?

Horribly. He's not qualified to be the president and he's not very bright.

However, the CIA and millitary have recently been doing well!

He did not break almost every promise that he made.
He is brilliant when it comes to foreign affairs.
Reverend Wright was sound bites to mislead people.
He is not close to being a liar.
His birth certificate was produced many times over, going back to when he ran for senator.
He doesn't have to thin of skin to be effective, He's taken every horrific and ridiculous lie said about him, like a man.
He never played the race card.

He couldn't close Guantanamo after being in office and given classified imformation.
He said he was getting the troops out of Iraq, and putting more troops in Afghanistan to defeat the terrorists and to go after Bin Laden
There was nothing said by Rev. Wright that was untrue. Sound bites were misleading.
He said there will be no lobbyists in his administration.
Congress and the senate held meeting in several different venues and obama apologized to c-span for the confusion.
Obama waited until the republicans made a complete ass out of there selfs before showing his original birth certificate. The republicans always knew that he was born in Hawaii. They were selling a bill of goods to the tea party and anyone else that would believe that nonsense.
He addmitted he was wrong to answer the reporters question about the cambridge police without knowing all the facts.

I forgot your other comment. He made the 8% unemploymnet comment when it was a 8 % . When he was sworn into office, unemployment was at 10 % and climbing. He's done a great job keeping the unemployment under 10%.

Quote: duckston09

I forgot your other comment. He made the 8% unemploymnet comment when it was a 8 % . When he was sworn into office, unemployment was at 10 % and climbing. He's done a great job keeping the unemployment under 10%.

Can you please site a source for your unemployment numbers?

You want me to find a website for you. I'll see if I can find one.

It only took me 10 seconds to prove your numbers are out of touch with reality. I am just curious to see who supplies you with the information you base your decisions on.

It's taking me to long to find everything on google. The best thing I can tell you is to go to youtube. The republicans asked obama to come to baltimore and answer there questions on live t.v.. The agreement was just republican congressman and republican senators, no democrats in the room. He agreed and it was live on t.v. .The best way to answer the comments said by me and others is to watch this yourself, and you will hear the questions and comments that the republicans asked the president. I just found it on youtube under ( president obama takes all questions at GOP house issues conference). Or you can put in obama in baltimore against republicans. The only thing wrong with this is, it's one hour and twenty five minutes long. I think you would be surprised who I voted for.

Quote: Virgi

"Should I send more troops to Afghanistan, or should I dither while more American soldiers die daily?"

Right wing piffle and spin that wasn't supported by the actual commanders on the ground at the time. As I recall they weren't actually requesting a faster decision from Obama. As far as Iran, Obama did speak out -- not right that very second. But Obama did not act like a glory-hounding demagogue appeasing his domestic audience with tough-sounding rhetoric. Unlike GW who spoke out on Georgia like he was going to do something and Moscow rolled over them knowing Bush would be to sitting on his butt with his bluff called..

How many American troops killed in Libya on Obama's watch - Zero.
How many Americans troops killed taking out bin Laden - Zero.

Of course that's just some excellent luck, but still nice to point out.

Quote: duckston09

It's taking me to long to find everything on google. .

It takes less than a few seconds to google unemployment rates and prove your numbers are completely made up. You are free to support Obama as much as you want but you will quickly find that trying to justify your support with ficticous facts will not go unchallenged here. Right now you are ignoring facts and trying to change the subject after making some very strong statements about unemployment.

In case anyone asks:

Quote:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal told lawmakers that President Obama had engaged in a "thoughtful process" on Afghanistan and refused to criticize the president for delaying his decision to send more troops.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who was in the briefing in Kabul, spilled the details to the Washington Post:

"He believed that the mission was accomplishable," Price said after meeting the general and other top U.S. officials in Kabul. Some of the lawmakers pressed McChrystal on Obama's lengthy decision-making, but the general described it as a "thoughtful process and wouldn't go any further," Price said. "I was a little surprised he didn't voice frustration with the delay."

The question you should ask yourself, would McChrystal really let troops die just to please the commander & chief?

Quote: duckston09

He couldn't close Guantanamo after being in office and given classified imformation.

How does it matter why he did not close it? You do not make promises you don't know you can keep. My kids know that, and the President of the US does not. That's disturbing.

Quote:

He said there will be no lobbyists in his administration.

No. He said "in Washington".
My favorite piece of his bailout bill BTW was a special section describing a new tax break for bow arrow manufacturers.
Yes, you read it right - bow arrows were desperately needed to save the economy.

Quote:

Congress and the senate held meeting in several different venues and obama apologized to c-span for the confusion.

So? Do we really want a president who routinely has to apologize for his stupidity? Can't we do better than that?

Quote:

Obama waited until the republicans made a complete ass out of there selfs before showing his original birth certificate.

That would have been a nice strategical move, perhaps, for a high school student body president.

Quote:

He addmitted he was wrong to answer the reporters question about the cambridge police without knowing all the facts.

So what if he did. It does not make it right. A President cannot be allowed to be "wrong" in basic stuff like this. It is just not the kind of job where you can afford stupid mistakes.

Apologizing can make him less of an a-hole, but it does not make him any better as a president.

To address one issue...the President said on the campaign trail that there would be no lobbyists in his administration.

Some say Washington, some say his administration...but his administration is the least area he promised--I'd have to listen to everything over again to see how broad the promise actually was.

Okay--so has he actually kept the minimum promise he made? No. There are lobbyists in the administration. Here is a somewhat old list of lobbyists nominated for positions (I can do more research and find out who actually took jobs, but just picking these folks...or even thinking about picking them...violated his promise to us):

* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Timberjim, Please don't tell me that I am making up numbers. Now I might be off a little or maybe misunderstood a few things, but I can assure you i'm not making up numbers. President Obama was elected President in the beginning of November, What was the unemployment rate? How many jobs were lost in November? How many jobs were lost in December? He was sworn in on January 20th. How many jobs were lost in January? Now he has to get a team of experts together because this country was staring down the face of a depression. Do you think a President gets sworn in and the next day he signs something. In fact, it was worst than the great depression because we have over 300 million people in this country. At this point we are into the millions of more jobs being lost since he was elected President. Don't forget, he's walking into two wars going on and anywhere from a half million jobs a month being lost to a million jobs being lost every month. I don't know the number of jobs that was being lost by the time he could get the experts together, come up with the right solution, because you have to make sure you get this right before you send it to congress, but I'm telling you the unemployment was rising out of control. I believe this process took three months to complete after he was sworn in. Now , how many people are out of work at this point. I would hope that you would agree that three month would be about the time it would take to figure out this horrific mess he inherited from his predecessor. What is the unemployment rate at this point. I don't know if ear marks were put in there or not by congress and the senate, but I can guarantee you, he had to sign the bill because there was no time to send it back to go through the process again because this country was collaping. I don't know if you realize how close we were to going completely under. So , I would be happy if any president could get all that done and keep the economy going. So what is the unemployment rate at this point.

I've seen a lot of Presidents come and go and I don't remember any of them not saying something wrong, or silly, or just plain stupid somewhere during there term or terms. I guess presidents are human too. I taught my kids to keep promises also but sometimes a president has to do what is right at the time whether he made a promise or not. I remember Bush Sr. saying , read my lips, no new taxes. Well, guess what, he had to raises taxes and I agreed with him at the time. Anyway, by reading everybody's comments (including mine) it's no wonder that people are dying because they have no health care, or people are homeless because all the jobs are over seas, Gas is $5.00 a gallion, Food prices through the roof, Trying to take social security and medicare away from senior citizens, no education system, millions addicted to drugs, wealthy people draining all the money out of the banks with out going to jail. Social security was one of the best ideas this country ever came up with and we detroyed it. If politicians never put there hands on social security, it would be the biggest annuity plan that this country has ever seen. But for some reason we vote for and against the people for all the wrong reasons. The reasons that most of us talked about on this post. I seen a poll on t.v. that asked people 40 years old and older, name one bill that president clinton passed while he was in office. Over 80% couldn't name one. When he left office he had almost a 70% rating. Which just goes to show you, if people are working , your the best president we ever had.

what was the unemployment rate three months after he took office?

Quote: Virgi

Like I said, give up. You got caught making up points and numbers and it forced you into making several wordy posts that STILL appear not to have made you feel good about your BS.

Quit while you're behind on this one.

like he said

Quote: timberjim

It takes less than a few seconds to google unemployment rates and prove your numbers are completely made up. You are free to support Obama as much as you want but you will quickly find that trying to justify your support with ficticous facts will not go unchallenged here. Right now you are ignoring facts and trying to change the subject after making some very strong statements about unemployment.

Unemployment was 8.5% when Obama took office in January of 2009. 8.5% is greater than 8%. Are you confused about when his term started or something?

what numbers am I making up?

what numbers am I making up?

Virgi, believe me, i feel good about myself. I was wrong by assuming that you knew what I was talking about. I have no idea why you think a president can walk into office and snap his fingers and everything is fine. So your right, when he took office unemployment was under 10%. What i should have said, by the time he could clean up the mess that bush caused, unemployment was at 10%. I apologize.

.....

Quote: gofaster87

Bush? Caused this? Wake up. Ridiculous spending and the damn banking system caused all this. Obama is cheap hooker that likes to spend a jons money. Keeping the troops over there didn't help. All it took was one single small team to get rid of Osama. Didn't require the whole damn Marine Corp. This whole terrorist bs is about intelligence not power in numbers. Everyone always talks about cleaning up some elses mess, its all bs. If someone is a strong enough leader they take care of the issues without pointing the finger. This is why most people are followers, damn sheeple.

Bush certainly caused some of it. His tax cuts weren't met with offsetting spending cuts, and his medicare prescription drug benefit plan wasn't met with offsetting revenue increases. So, even discounting the wars, he definitely has some responsibility for the situation.

That doesn't change the fact that you're right about Obama liking to spend a lot of money. I get the feeling that he's a guy who has drawers full of wallets and shelves of shoes he never wears.

.....

Quote: rdw4potus

Bush certainly caused some of it. His tax cuts weren't met with offsetting spending cuts,

There's a bit of a problem here: tax cuts invariably generate more revenue rather than less.

Quote:

and his medicare prescription drug benefit plan wasn't met with offsetting revenue increases.

Not to mention an even worse distortion of the market.

Quote: Nareed

There's a bit of a problem here: tax cuts invariably generate more revenue rather than less.

That doesn't follow logically, as a tax cut to 1% of income obviously will not produce as much as revenue 10% tax rate. There's a curve of revenue versus tax rate. Except it's probably not clear what shape that curve actually is, as it varies over points in the economic cycle.

"Thank God for President Obama. If he had not been there, who knows what would've happened."

Rush Limbaugh

Quote: thecesspit

That doesn't follow logically,

Yes, it does.

Quote:

There's a curve of revenue versus tax rate. Except it's probably not clear what shape that curve actually is, as it varies over points in the economic cycle.

I think you're talking about the Laffer curve.

In any case revenue went up with the Bush tax cuts, not down.

Indeed, but my point is that you can't simply state that ALL tax cuts will increase tax revenue, if we are at the peak of the curve, or actually on the left hand down slope.

So it clearly does not follow logically that a tax cut increase revenue EVERYTIME.

It may well be the case right now that it would. I have no idea if the US is the same point of tax rate and incomes that it was when Bush made a tax cut. If you do have an idea and some info, please share, it'd be interesting.

Does this mean if we eliminate taxes all together, as big business would prefer, then revenue will increase greatly ??

Quote: thecesspit

So it clearly does not follow logically that a tax cut increase revenue EVERYTIME.

It does if you assume the people making the cuts aren't economically illiterate, or followers of failed economic policies.

But the claim made in the thread, by implication, is that the Bush tax cuts decreased revenue, ergo there should have been a reduction in spending. I see no information on that, either.

Anwyay, there are two simple reasons why tax cuts rasie revenue: 1) with less money being wasted by the treasury, more money fdins its way into productive areas. this increases the size of the country's economy, which means there is more wealth available to be taxed. a rate of, say, 20% on $6 trillion gets you more money than a rate of 90% on $1 trillion. 2) With lower rates there's less incentive to find less prodcutive, but safer, tax shelters for excess capital; this money finds its way to more productive areas as well.

Exhibit A of identifying truth mixed with lie in an effort to mislead:

Quote: Wavy70

"Thank God for President Obama. If he had not been there, who knows what would've happened."

Rush Limbaugh

True: he said that.
Lie: far from the context of the remarks.

Quote: RushLimbaugh

What we're hearing is that there were no communications in or out, that he required couriers. And guess what? It was again Obama who deserved praise of continuing the Bush policies at Guantanamo Bay. I told you that this administration would never close Guantanamo Bay, and it was the intelligence we gathered among the detainees at Guantanamo Bay that led us to this enlarged hut that's called a mansion outside Islamabad.

Couriers were needed by Osama to receive and send information. In order to keep him alive, in order to keep him safe, they couldn't allow any communication. There was no television. There was no Internet. There were no telephones, no satellite, nothing in or out. It required couriers. Detainees who may have been waterboarded, and again we need to never forget that President Obama deserves praise for continuing the policies established by George W. Bush which led to the acquisition of this intel that led us to the enlarged hut in Pakistan that led to the assassination of Bin Laden last night. The detainees, many of them started talking, and the couriers were identified. The couriers were then tracked and followed by intelligence operatives, and it was learned as far back as last summer where Bin Laden was. Last summer it was suggested that we go in and get Bin Laden, and Obama even then, knowing full well and the only one in the room knowing that the military's way going in there and bombing this thing wasn't the way to work. Thank God for President Obama. If he had not been there, who knows what woulda happened. It was only Obama who understood the need to get DNA, to prove that this was Bin Laden that we had assassinated.

So the information, the intel from captured detainees at Guantanamo led to the discovery of the courier system that kept Bin Laden informed of what's going on. I told you that this regime would never close down Guantanamo Bay. It was simply too valuable a military asset.

In context, the comment is clearly sarcastic. The theme of the comment is, Obama benefited from and continued practicing Bush-era intelligence gathering, as opposed to his vociferous criticism as a senator and his campaign promises. The sarcasm is, Obama was either lying or talking out of his ass beforehand, and he's either lying or talking out of his ass now: "Thank God Obama was there! Only HE knew what to do!" ... as opposed to his position on the very Bush-era techniques that put him in position to even make that decision, where he clearly didn't know what to do.

Here's hoping he leaves the infrastructure behind for his successor, or if he tears it down and makes his successor rebuild it ... maybe after another 9/11. That is a very pertinent question.

Not only that, what person who hasn't been under a rock the last four years is really going to believe Limbaugh is an Obama convert? What kind of Disneyland does someone live in to think that people will ever be convinced of that?

Finally, if it's an effort to try to make people think that, "hey, this was so great, even Limbaugh's on board," why would someone even mention it? Once the context is provided, the whole effort crashes, and it exposes the audience to Limbaugh's alternative point of view when they would otherwise not be exposed to it. Even if readers aren't converted to Limbaugh's view, it discredits Wavy and his libereal ilk as folks that can't be relied upon to discuss issues honestly and in context.

Love Limbaugh or hate him, agree with the sarcasm or disagree, it's pretty clear that it is intentionally misleading to parse the quote like Wavy did. Two minutes on Limbaugh's site knocks that down.

IMHO, no doubt Obama deserves credit. Tough decision, big risk, HUGE downside if it went south. But so do Bush, Cheney, Petraeus, Rumsfeld, etc. But regardless of who gets credit, following the mix-lies-with-truth template from garden-variety liberals should always be exposed.

Especially when it's very easy.

If the Republican party will hitch their wagon to Rush Limbaugh once again, Obama's re-election is assured !

Quote: Nareed

There's a bit of a problem here: tax cuts invariably generate more revenue rather than less.

I agree with thecesspit on this. To a point, but just where is that point? If its a blanket statement then we should just eliminate taxes completely and we'd all have a very Merry Christmas. When rates were as high as 70% or 90% I can certainly see where lowering them might induce compliance and increase investment. At current rates, not so much.

I read a similar statement a year or so ago and thought it was a very interesting concept, not as much on a political level but on an economics level.

I went searching for some historical data which I found here:

The Tax Policy Center

As far as I can tell this is the complete revenue, corporate and personal, (which I believe includes estate), as well as "social insurance and retirement benefits", (in their words, not mine), and excise taxes.

Then I went looking for the major changes to tax rates, which wasn't quite as easily deciphered. While there were scores of changes made over the years, I don't have the time, (or ambition), to exam the relationship between every change and overall tax revenue so I just looked at the top marginal rate, which is generally the most contentious.

In 1964 the top rate dropped from 90% to 70%. Revenue increased for each of the next 5 years, (and more).

In 1982 the top rate went from 70% to 50%. Revenue dropped the first year, and then increased after that.

In 1988 the top rate dropped to 28%, and revenue increased.

In 1990 the top rate was raised to 31%, and revenue increased.

In 1993 the top rate was raised to 39.6%, and revenue increased.

In 2001 the top rate was lowered to 35%, (over the course of 3 years), and revenue dropped and remained below the 2000 level for 4 years.

As far as long term gains, I took a closer look at the last 2 changes. I picked a 6 year period, primarily because the 2001 tax cut has its most significant gains that far out so it was to the benefit of tax cut advocates. The following figures show the revenue, (in millions), the year the tax cut was put into effect, and the percentage difference from the year the tax cut went into effect for the next 6 years.

1993: 1,154,341 top marginal rate raised 31% to 39.6%
1994: 109%
1995: 117%
1996: 125%
1997: 136%
1998: 149%
1999: 158%

2000: 2,025,198 top marginal rate lowered from 39.6% to 35% over 3 years, (appropriate rate in parenthasis)
2001: 98% (39.1%)
2002: 91% (38.6%)
2003: 88% (35% through present day)
2004: 92%
2005: 106%
2006: 118%

The conclusion I came to them is exactly what thecesspit stated earlier: that there is a floating point relative to the current economic climate which dictates whether tax increases or decreases at that time will increase or decrease revenue.

I think, Nareed's point was that a tax cut made by a sane politician should be expected to raise the revenue rather than to lower it.

Somebody mentioned earlier in this thread that Bush cut the taxes but failed to cut the spending appropriately top compensate for lost revenue. Nareed was rebutting that point by saying that the revenue was actually supposed to (and did in fact) rise after the tax cut, not fall.

Obviously not any tax cut will increase the revenue (the extreme example of 0% tax rate is the proof of that trivial point), but any sane tax cut should indeed do just that, barring some unexpected and unforeseen changes in the economic situation.

Quote: PaulEWog

1993: 1,154,341 top marginal rate raised 31% to 39.6%
1994: 109%
1995: 117%
1996: 125%
1997: 136%
1998: 149%
1999: 158%

2000: 2,025,198 top marginal rate lowered from 39.6% to 35% over 3 years, (appropriate rate in parenthasis)
2001: 98% (39.1%)
2002: 91% (38.6%)
2003: 88% (35% through present day)
2004: 92%
2005: 106%
2006: 118%

The conclusion I came to them is exactly what thecesspit stated earlier: that there is a floating point relative to the current economic climate which dictates whether tax increases or decreases at that time will increase or decrease revenue.

The revenue does not only depend on tax rate. In the nineties teh economy was just so hot, that the revenue kept growing despite the tax hikes. In the '00s, it was on the down curve, and kept falling for a while even after the tax cuts. The problem with this data is that there is no way to know how much it would fall in 2002 if the tax was not cut.

Quote: PaulEWog

The conclusion I came to them is exactly what thecesspit stated earlier: that there is a floating point relative to the current economic climate which dictates whether tax increases or decreases at that time will increase or decrease revenue.

Sure. nad you need to take overall economic conditions into account. Like the recession that followed the collapse dot.com bubble got worse after the 9/11 attacks. But overall lowering the tax rate gets you more revenue.

In some cases there are so many avenues of growth that even raising taxes won't bring revenue down. But that's rare, and was last seen during the dot com bubble. Make your own conclussion.

It's a lot like business. If sales slow down the best way to raise them is to lower your prices. There are exceptions to this, anturally. Oil is so necessary and without a ready substitute, that its price can go up and consumption won't go down much. Same with food and a few other commodities.

Quote: weaselman

I think, Nareed's point was that a tax cut made by a sane politician should be expected to raise the revenue rather than to lower it.

That's still not true. There is still a point where any tax cut will reduce revenue, or why aren't we always cutting taxes? Answer : because at some point it will reduce revenue, and increase in taxes would increase tax take. Even 32 - 31% tax cut may reduce the tax take. If it does increase, maybe 31-29% will reduce it. carry on cutting. One of the steps HAS to reduce tax revenue. Why is the 10-9% cut "insane" but the 11-10% "sane" if the former reduces revenue, but the latter increases it? Note you have to make that judgement call prior to the tax cut.

Nothing to do with sanity. Or at least it becomes an economic argument about when is it insane to cut taxes for revenue increase.

Which I'd contend no-one actually can say for sure. I'm also not saying that a tax cut NOW won't increase revenue.

I'm just arguing against there being a simple blanket "rule" in economics for this situation. It never seems to work that way. Else no government would ever increase taxes as an attempt (which is successful or otherwise) to increase revenue (which has clearly worked in the last century, as government revenue is higher than it was 100 years ago (taking into account inflation) but tax rates are also higher).

Quote: thecesspit

Quote: weaselman

I think, Nareed's point was that a tax cut made by a sane politician should be expected to raise the revenue rather than to lower it.

That's still not true. There is still a point where any tax cut will reduce revenue, or why aren't we always cutting taxes?

For that exact reason - we are (mostly) sane, and do not want to decrease the revenue.
What's "still not true"?

Quote:

Nothing to do with sanity.

It has everything to do with sanity. The goal is increasing revenue. If someone are doing something that he knows will cause effect opposite to his goal, there are two possibilities - either he is insane, or a saboteur. So, leaving conspiracy theories to the FSZ, the only remaining possibility for a president cutting taxes to decrease revenue is insanity.

Quote:

I'm just arguing against there being a simple blanket "rule" in economics for this situation.

The "rule" is that if a president considers cutting taxes, he does not need to consider reducing spending in parallel "to compensate".
(I am all for reducing spending, just saying that it is not necessary to compensate for tax cuts).

Quote:

Else no government would ever increase taxes as an attempt (which is successful or otherwise) to increase revenue

Sometimes the government wants to cut the taxes, sometimes they want to raise them, but the result they expect from either of those actions, is always to increase the revenue, never to decrease it.

Quote: rdw4potus

Unemployment was 8.5% when Obama took office in January of 2009. 8.5% is greater than 8%. Are you confused about when his term started or something?

Duckston said that when Obama took office it was 10% and climbing. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports January 2009 as 7.8%. It did not reach 10% until October 2009. I asked him to substantiate his numbers.
Where was I confused? Please quote anything I said about 8% or 8.5% or when Obama took office.

Quote: weaselman

For that exact reason - we are (mostly) sane, and do not want to decrease the revenue.
What's "still not true"?

Your tax cut may not increase revenue. The tax cut may be designed to REDUCE revenue and thus have more money in the private system. I can think of many reasons why. And still, why you think the tax cut will increase tax take it MAY NOT. It is just not true that a tax cut increase revenue in EVERY case, sane or otherwise.

Quote:

It has everything to do with sanity. The goal is increasing revenue. If someone are doing something that he knows will cause effect opposite to his goal, there are two possibilities - either he is insane, or a saboteur. So, leaving conspiracy theories to the FSZ, the only remaining possibility for a president cutting taxes to decrease revenue is insanity.

I disagree that the only reason is to increase revenue. I disagree also that just because you wish to increase tax take that you WILL increase tax take.

Quote:

Sometimes the government wants to cut the taxes, sometimes they want to raise them, but the result they expect from either of those actions, is always to increase the revenue, never to decrease it.

Again, just because I expect X to happen, it may not actually happen due to all sorts of unknowns.

If you said "Whenever a president cuts taxes, he expects revenue to increase", I'd probably not argue. The statement was "When you cut taxes, revenue increases" which (just look at the Laffer curve Nareed pointed out) just can not be true all the time, whether you wish it to be true or not. Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not an expert economist, and I hope I don't give that impression that I think I am), you cannot know where you exactly on that curve (on a peak, or on the left hand slope or right hand slope). Your assuming you are always on that right hand slope... I just can't see how that is true, sanity or insanity.

Just quoting here: (Argue at your leisure)

Quote:

But the question of rising revenue is more complicated than that. For one thing, economists expect tax revenues to go up each year due to economic growth, population growth and inflation, even if tax rates stay the same. So saying "revenues have gone up" isn’t particularly meaningful in that context.

Given that, it would be more significant to be able to say what effect tax changes have on the overall economy. But this isn’t easy, because so many things affect the economy more than the federal tax code. What this means is that you can raise taxes during a bad economy and get less revenue, or you can cut taxes during a time of economic growth and get more revenue.

Those changes to revenue generally aren't caused by the tax rates at all, but by other changes in the broader economy. President Bill Clinton, for example, raised taxes in 1993, and the economy expanded for much of the 1990s and tax revenue went up.

"There's no clear relationship between taxes and economic growth," said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Too many factors complicate the picture to draw clear conclusions about the taxes-growth relationship."

Additionally, a 2006 report from the U.S. Treasury Department concluded the effect of most tax laws on the wider economy were "uncertain, but probably generally small."

Previously, we’ve rated statements that tax increases lowered revenues, and we’ve found that False. Walsh’s statement stops short of such a claim, but it does leave the impression that tax cuts could help the budget picture, and that’s problematic.

The 2006 Treasury report sought to document the revenue effects of every major tax law passed since 1940. To compare the different laws, it examined tax revenues as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, a measurement that accounts for economic growth and inflation.

The report found that laws that lowered taxes produced declines in revenues, and that laws that increased taxes produced increases in tax revenues. This undermines claims that tax cuts can actually increase government revenues more than they would have increased otherwise.

We’re examining Walsh’s statement, "Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown." He said "every time," and that’s not the case. Revenues did not go up in 2001, 2002 or 2003, after tax rates were lowered. We also find it problematic to make hard claims about tax cuts growing the economy enough to increase tax revenues and helping balance the budget. Overall, we rate Walsh’s statement False.

from here

Quote: thecesspit

Your tax cut may not increase revenue. The tax cut may be designed to REDUCE revenue and thus have more money in the private system. I can think of many reasons why.

Could you name a few?
Economically, a player functioning against its own interest does not seem to make any sense :-/

Quote:

And still, why you think the tax cut will increase tax take it MAY NOT. It is just not true that a tax cut increase revenue in EVERY case, sane or otherwise.

Yeah, it is ... :)

Quote:

I disagree that the only reason is to increase revenue.

Well, just disagreeing with something doesn't automatically make it wrong. Name another reason, together with a real-life example when it actually happened.

Quote:

I disagree also that just because you wish to increase tax take that you WILL increase tax take.

No, you could make a mistake of course, but that's beyond the point.

Quote:

If you said "Whenever a president cuts taxes, he expects revenue to increase", I'd probably not argue.

That's exactly what I said :)

Quote: buzzpaff

If the Republican party will hitch their wagon to Rush Limbaugh once again, Obama's re-election is assured !

Just like it kept them from making gains in the 2010 midterms, eh? Fact is when you go after Obama you win. When you try to have an agreement love-in, you get the results McCain got.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Exhibit A of identifying truth mixed with lie in an effort to mislead:



True: he said that.
Lie: far from the context of the remarks.

[...]

IMHO, no doubt Obama deserves credit. Tough decision, big risk, HUGE downside if it went south. But so do Bush, Cheney, Petraeus, Rumsfeld, etc. But regardless of who gets credit, following the mix-lies-with-truth template from garden-variety liberals should always be exposed.

Especially when it's very easy.

So, taking what you said Rush said at face value, then I interpret this as, that Rush couldn't "man-up" and give a simple nod to Obama when it's deserved without throwing down and adding in a steaming pile of demeaning bullshit? And I went to his site, and apparently the listener/caller was worried that he might be complimenting Obama on something, or in favor of Obama on something. Yes, like, probably an entire audience of listeners that wanted bin Laden dead from 9/11 on too. That's really demented, and if the veiwership won't call Rush on it, then it's doubly demented.

Lowering taxes can have the the effect of raising revenue, of course, it the growth resulting from the tax cut (or more spending) replaces the revenue lost. It happens all of the time. Similarly, raising taxes in a growing economy can lower revenue if the reduction in growth offsets the raising of taxes - also happens all of the time. Businesses and people alter their spending depending on the taxes and the perceived value of doing something else with their money.

I gave Obama a "poor" rating, despite him getting rid of UBL. Fiscally the man's a nightmare, and congress', senate's and the POTUS's insistence on spending more money when there's record deficits and low revenue is very poor monetary policy. That said, he's ended the war in Iraq as promised, and he started out in a terrible hole too.

Quote: Virgi

I watched Alan Colmes argue with Bill O'Reilly tonight that rendition & waterboarding of certain radicals during the Bush administration had nothing to do with our intelligence people obtaining the names of key individuals who led us to the event of this week. Here the fool sat, in the face of fact after fact delivered by O'Reilly, denying everything, and accusing O'Reilly & Monica Crowley of just wanting to "build up" what he called a "terrible president" in G. W. Bush. His premise? That Donald Rumsfeld himself claimed that waterboarding and rendition didn't have a thing to do with any of it.

Well, as is typical with liberals in denial, the next hour made AC look like the dumbest rock this side of Saudi Arabia. Shaun Hannity had Rumsfeld on as a guest, and he asked him that direct question. Wouldn't you know it, there was Donald Rumsfeld, proudly proclaiming that waterboarding and rendition played an integral part in killing OBL earlier this week.

I see the same egg-on-your-face results everytime the libs here argue with the facts. Keep it up please!

The south is a mess, OBL is dead, oil is at $114/bbl, The Rock turned 39 yesterday, Liriano pitched a no-hitter tonight, and the story of the week has got to be that O'Reilly let someone else talk on his show:-P

Seriously, though. Fox News could really stand to find a better liberal than Alan Colmes. When the token opposition person is a blighering idiot, it's hardly a fair fight.

Quote: weaselman

Quote: thecesspit

Quote: weaselman

I think, Nareed's point was that a tax cut made by a sane politician should be expected to raise the revenue rather than to lower it.

That's still not true. There is still a point where any tax cut will reduce revenue, or why aren't we always cutting taxes?

For that exact reason - we are (mostly) sane, and do not want to decrease the revenue.
What's "still not true"?

Reasons to decrease revenue (or at least give a tax cut for reasons other than increasing revenue) ::

1) Increase the money supply in the private sector
2) As a pre-election bribe
3) As a means to reduce the money to spend to create "small government" or other idealogical concerns.

Quote:

It has everything to do with sanity. The goal is increasing revenue. If someone are doing something that he knows will cause effect opposite to his goal, there are two possibilities - either he is insane, or a saboteur. So, leaving conspiracy theories to the FSZ, the only remaining possibility for a president cutting taxes to decrease revenue is insanity.

See above. Anyways, as you made clear, if the reason is to increase revenue, with a belief you are on the right hand side of the Laffer Curve (an inverted parabola), all well and good. You might be wrong, so as I stated, my argument was that the tax cut MAY NOT increase revenue.

Like wise, as other's stated, a tax rise may also increase revenue (I can't think of a reason why someone would raise taxes to decrease revenue... unless it's some sort of strange inflation control, but we get back to sanity.

Quote:

Sometimes the government wants to cut the taxes, sometimes they want to raise them, but the result they expect from either of those actions, is always to increase the revenue, never to decrease it.

I don't think we are getting anywhere abouts -causes- of tax rate changes(1), but the original statement by Nareed was that the -effect- of cutting taxes was generally increase revenue. And I just look at that being a not good rule of thumb based on simple mathematics, not on any broad policy, political view point or anything else.

If the goal is to increase revenue, you want to move in the right direction "up the curve" as it where.

(1) In that I understand where you are coming from, and it's not the cause I was really having a problem with initially. It's merely the effect.

Cheers.

Virgi, Of course if you watch a republican station your going see credit due to torture for the capture of bin laden. If you turn to a democrat station , your going to get another spin. But my question is, Why did it take so long to get the guy responible for killing 3,000 people on 911. Every time I would hear Bush say he wasn't concerned about bin laden, I just figured he didn't want to give out confidential information. But as years went by, and knowing that the bush family and the bin laden family were once in the oil business together, always made me wonder what was going on. And why would Bush go to iraq instead of afghanistan. I starting thinking , maybe he was already dead. There was a 25 million dollar reward and nobody could find him.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Exhibit A of identifying truth mixed with lie in an effort to mislead:



True: he said that.
Lie: far from the context of the remarks.

Quote: RushLimbaugh

What we're hearing is that there were no communications in or out, that he required couriers. And guess what? It was again Obama who deserved praise of continuing the Bush policies at Guantanamo Bay. I told you that this administration would never close Guantanamo Bay, and it was the intelligence we gathered among the detainees at Guantanamo Bay that led us to this enlarged hut that's called a mansion outside Islamabad.

Couriers were needed by Osama to receive and send information. In order to keep him alive, in order to keep him safe, they couldn't allow any communication. There was no television. There was no Internet. There were no telephones, no satellite, nothing in or out. It required couriers. Detainees who may have been waterboarded, and again we need to never forget that President Obama deserves praise for continuing the policies established by George W. Bush which led to the acquisition of this intel that led us to the enlarged hut in Pakistan that led to the assassination of Bin Laden last night. The detainees, many of them started talking, and the couriers were identified. The couriers were then tracked and followed by intelligence operatives, and it was learned as far back as last summer where Bin Laden was. Last summer it was suggested that we go in and get Bin Laden, and Obama even then, knowing full well and the only one in the room knowing that the military's way going in there and bombing this thing wasn't the way to work. Thank God for President Obama. If he had not been there, who knows what woulda happened. It was only Obama who understood the need to get DNA, to prove that this was Bin Laden that we had assassinated.

So the information, the intel from captured detainees at Guantanamo led to the discovery of the courier system that kept Bin Laden informed of what's going on. I told you that this regime would never close down Guantanamo Bay. It was simply too valuable a military asset.

In context, the comment is clearly sarcastic. The theme of the comment is, Obama benefited from and continued practicing Bush-era intelligence gathering, as opposed to his vociferous criticism as a senator and his campaign promises. The sarcasm is, Obama was either lying or talking out of his ass beforehand, and he's either lying or talking out of his ass now: "Thank God Obama was there! Only HE knew what to do!" ... as opposed to his position on the very Bush-era techniques that put him in position to even make that decision, where he clearly didn't know what to do.

Here's hoping he leaves the infrastructure behind for his successor, or if he tears it down and makes his successor rebuild it ... maybe after another 9/11. That is a very pertinent question.

Not only that, what person who hasn't been under a rock the last four years is really going to believe Limbaugh is an Obama convert? What kind of Disneyland does someone live in to think that people will ever be convinced of that?

Finally, if it's an effort to try to make people think that, "hey, this was so great, even Limbaugh's on board," why would someone even mention it? Once the context is provided, the whole effort crashes, and it exposes the audience to Limbaugh's alternative point of view when they would otherwise not be exposed to it. Even if readers aren't converted to Limbaugh's view, it discredits Wavy and his libereal ilk as folks that can't be relied upon to discuss issues honestly and in context.

Love Limbaugh or hate him, agree with the sarcasm or disagree, it's pretty clear that it is intentionally misleading to parse the quote like Wavy did. Two minutes on Limbaugh's site knocks that down.

IMHO, no doubt Obama deserves credit. Tough decision, big risk, HUGE downside if it went south. But so do Bush, Cheney, Petraeus, Rumsfeld, etc. But regardless of who gets credit, following the mix-lies-with-truth template from garden-variety liberals should always be exposed.

Especially when it's very easy.

Wait? You mean Rush used sarcasm? Are you sure? Rush sarcasm? I hardly think someone such as Rush would use sarcasm on the radio. Long time dittohead here.

Wow I must thank you Soccer for pointing out the extremely obvious. I thought Rush just broke out his Peter, Paul and Mary records scored a nickle bag from his cleaning Lady's son and had a veggie burrito before he went over to the dark side.