Post: #51

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics...nsequences
>>>

Quote:The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure.

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-in...eiling#two
>>>

Quote:As most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-setting debt. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."



Forced to raise taxes eleven times to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history...

Following in Reagan's footsteps, George W. Bush buried the myth of Republican fiscal discipline.

Inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Bill Clinton. Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for the bulk of the yawning budget deficits he produced. (It is more than a little ironic that Paul Ryan ten years ago called the tax cuts "too small" because he believed the estimated surplus Bush eviscerated would be even larger.)



Like Reagan and Stockman before him, Bush resorted to the rosy scenario to claim he would halve the budget deficit by 2009. Before the financial system meltdown [2008], Bush's deficit already reached $490 billion. (And even before the passage of the Wall Street bailout, Bush had presided over a $4 trillion increase in the national debt, a staggering 71% jump.) By January 2009, the mind-numbing deficit figure reached $1.2 trillion, forcing President Bush to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

Post: #52

deleted

Post: #53

Race thread in 3...2...1...

Post: #54

I find it quite funny how guys here can talk about who did what with the budgets while completely forgetting what was happening in the economy at the time.

When economy is good, the president gets all the accolades.
When economy is bad, it is the president's fault.

You guys act like this is all done in a vacuum.

I don't believe expanding social programs when trying to restart the economy is a good idea. Most companies would scale back and get back to profitability before they would start expanding again. Guess what, that approach works.

Unfortunately, that isn't what is happening.

Post: #55

Quote:Who brought up Bush though? You did. I simply responded to your points.

Your analogy is unfit.

I brought up Bush simply to show how you were simply playing the other side of the same coin.

Criticism of Obama is "whining and biatching" but look, I bring up Bush, and you can write entire paragraphs "whining and biatching."

Quote: The birth cert thing is complete nonsense. You have no credible proof for that wild allegation whereas the 2000 electoral process is a widely known and verifiable event. Where'd you come with that? Some feeling in "yer gut" hillbilly?

There are arguments that counter your contention that the supreme court decision to stop the Florida recount where valid.

You wrote: Btw, many liberals - and people around the world - considered Dubya an illegitimate president...

And so? Many non-liberals - and people around the world - consider Obama an illegitimate president...

But again, that's not really my point. I'm trying to get you to see how both sides get played to keep the masses divided and conquered.

Bush's legacy is so awful that he was pretty much silenced in both McCain's and Romney's presidential campaigns.

Agreed! Bush, both Sr. and Jr., were disasters...just like Obama.

That's because they are ALL stooges for the Banksters that really run the show. Note that one of the last things Dubya did in office was bail out the Banks to big too fail. Note that one of the first things Obama did when he got into office, was to continue the bail outs.

Is there REALLY a huge difference between the two?

Only if you insist on playing along with the divide and conquer charade.

I read Obama's memoir well before he entered politics so I have respect for his mind.

Don't you know that not only Obama's but just about every other National political figure has ghost writer's do their memoirs? LOL

Watch Obama speak extemporaneously when his teleprompter goes on the blitz...he's as bad as Dubya ever was with all his hemming and hawing and stumbling and bumbling.

Morons. Puppets. Stooges.

A pox on both their houses!

Post: #56

Look man, I can debate facts all day but I don't find value is esoteric discussions with an armchair solipsist. You would find no reason to question whether he authored his memoir if you knew about the intellectual rigor it takes to become editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review in the first place. There's zero shortcuts or hacks to getting that honor. That's how he earned the respect of his institution and political elites and how he came to write a memoir in the first place.

Please allow me to enlighten you Mr. Solipsist,

Post: #57

Look man, I can debate facts all day but I don't find value is esoteric discussions with an armchair solipsist.

Armchair solipsist? That's the first time I've seen that term used as an ad hominem attack.

In my book, once the personal attacks begin, the debate is over. But before I leave this thread, let me offer this rejoinder:

Quote:I can debate facts all day but I don't find value is esoteric discussions

I listed a number of facts regarding the actions of the Obama administration and how they did all the same things as the Bush administration. You addressed none of them. Just to re-iterate the facts:

Continuing Bush's TARP bailouts
Middle East Wars
PATRIOT Acts & Surveillance of US Citizens
Rendition
Authorizing Assassination of US Citizens
Corporate Welfare
Inability to extemporaneously articulate themselves when their teleprompters malfunction.

What's the difference between the two again?

These are the FACTS I pointed out that really bolster my contention that there really is no difference between Presidents of either party.


Peace out.

Post: #58

(10-03-2013 06:41 PM)K Galt Wrote:  Look man, I can debate facts all day but I don't find value is esoteric discussions with an armchair solipsist.

Armchair solipsist? That's the first time I've seen that term used as an ad hominem attack.

In my book, once the personal attacks begin, the debate is over. But before I leave this thread, let me offer this rejoinder:

Quote:I can debate facts all day but I don't find value is esoteric discussions

I listed a number of facts regarding the actions of the Obama administration and how they did all the same things as the Bush administration. You addressed none of them. Just to re-iterate the facts:

Continuing Bush's TARP bailouts
Middle East Wars
PATRIOT Acts & Surveillance of US Citizens
Rendition
Authorizing Assassination of US Citizens
Corporate Welfare
Inability to extemporaneously articulate themselves when their teleprompters malfunction.

What's the difference between the two again?

These are the FACTS I pointed out that really bolster my contention that there really is no difference between Presidents of either party.


Peace out.

I still think they're quite different as politicians and as people. I also think Bush created the conditions that forced a bad hand towards, and would negatively impact, whoever would come after him, in this case Obama. Bless the heart of any man that has to follow eight years of a GWB presidency. Seriously. I wouldn't wish that on nobody. If anything, I think Obama was too restrained in the first two years of his presidency when the dems controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. He should have focused more on jobs instead of health care IMO. Either way, I consider his healthcare plan a welcome idea in light of the unsustainable status quo. Now docs have to focus on value over volume.

Post: #59

Good video share @Hencredible.

I have 3 questions:

1. Will Infiniti use this footage in a new car commercial to show what a great car it is at manuvering?

2. Was Jason Statham driving?

3. Why the fuck were the people on the lawn just laying there like it was a scene from a movie? With everything that's going you would think that common fucking sense would tell a person to run the fuck away from a scene like that...

Post: #60

(10-03-2013 06:29 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Look man, I can debate facts all day but I don't find value is esoteric discussions with an armchair solipsist. You would find no reason to question whether he authored his memoir if you knew about the intellectual rigor it takes to become editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review in the first place. There's zero shortcuts or hacks to getting that honor. That's how he earned the respect of his institution and political elites and how he came to write a memoir in the first place.

Please allow me to enlighten you Mr. Solipsist,

His vigour is what raises alarm bells for me. Obama did not get up the same way that the cushy "establishment" guys get in. He got in greasy by using backdoors and hustling his way into the right circles. He came up through the Chicago machine which is by far the most corrupt political faction in the country. I personally don't knock him for it if one wanted power and was in his shoes it was the only way to do it, he didn't have his dad to set the table for him like Bush jr. did.

Saying that though I believe that its his past that haunts him now in making really shitty ass choices. To many people he has to appease and payback for getting him where he is. I've seen no president be completely inept and frozen in leadership in this man, he panders to much both in public and behind the scenes whiten his ranks. Any chance he gets with a choice to make a decision, even the most politically viable one, he fucks up. I always feel a sword of Damocles hangs over his head if he doesn't push for what they want.

Post: #61

(10-03-2013 03:56 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Thank you, I was going to reply the same and add in an LOL for using a feminist to back an argument on this board.

Who the hell cares if Racchel Maddow is a feminist in the context of this discussion. If she's right about an economic issue she's right. I don't have to accept her feminism just to agree with her that Republicans are full of shit.

Quote:Having ANY deficit right now is bad. Our debt to GDP is out of control. Obama's deficits have been outrageous and now finally we will have an Obama budget deficit that isn't a trillion dollars and we are supposed to act like we have been saved.

We aren't even close to being near the top of debt to GDP ratios compared with the rest of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...ublic_debt

Quote:Not to forget the lowering of the deficit was accomplished by raising taxes, which is not a sustainable long term solution. It is already playing out that the middle class is being squeezed by these increases as full time jobs disappear and house hold income has still not recovered to 2007 levels.

It's no secret what has driven the deficit, and it ain't because Obama is spending like a drunken sailor. Because he hasn't.

Quote:And we still have the unfunded future liabilities and the baby boomer bust to go through.

Yet the gap between rich and poor is the widest it has ever been and almost all the gains of the recovery have gone to the top. You want to fund future liabilities, we know where the fucking money is. Raise taxes on the wealthy. It's just this simple. Some people have way too much fucking money while everyone else is struggling. We are living in essentially another Gilded Era. Tax them to death. The money is there. End of issue for me. If the super wealthy don't like it, fuck them.

Post: #62

(10-03-2013 10:07 PM)kosko Wrote:  He got in greasy by using backdoors and hustling his way into the right circles. He came up through the Chicago machine which is by far the most corrupt political faction in the country. I personally don't knock him for it if one wanted power and was in his shoes it was the only way to do it, he didn't have his dad to set the table for him like Bush jr. did.

That's not true at all. Obama never had any links to the Chicago political machine. He's not even from there; he's from Hawaii. He moved to Chicago as a complete outsider as an adult to work as a community organizer in the politically disenfranchised south side. He couldn't even get the attention of city officials to deal with asbestos issues in the public housing projects. He never ran for city politics and even lost his first race for a House congressional seat in 2000 to a long-time black incumbent, Bobby Rush. In fact, Bill Clinton flew out to Chicago at the last minute to campaign for Rush, not Obama. Obama lost BAD. It was such a devastating defeat that his family and closest friends encouraged him to give up politics altogether.

He then had a very low-key reentry into politics as a state senator and then later as a US senator, in a field of misfits, without ever passing through Chicago.

Some of his closest advisers are from his circle of independent friends in Hyde Park and the Uni of Chicago academic community (who eschew the politics of the city).

Post: #63

The financial running of the country and the office of the President are mutually exclusive topics. First of all, the President has very little influence over spending. That responsibility falls on the House which is dominated by Republicans.

Post: #64

(10-03-2013 04:23 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Didn't you know he played volleyball when he lived in the US? That's why he wanted jihad, 72 white virgins.

Osamas t-shirt: "I fought the jihad and all I got was these 72 white body-positive, cis-genderered polyamorous demiplatonic tortoises."

Post: #65

There's a word for fucking the rich and "taxing them to death" and it does not fucking work. Period.

It's called....

Socialism.

Good to know we have socialists on this forum.

Don't come banging on my door when shit hits the fan.

Post: #66

Takes econ 101.....knows how to fix the economy.
Listens to Fox News....knows how to fix the economy.
Listens to Jim Cramer...knows how to fix the economy.
Libertarian economics works pretty well....just check out somalia, the free market is doing wonders over there. I heard Mississippi and Arkansas are great places to live!

Also, socialism does not mean taxing the rich to death

Socialism as defined by Google: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Post: #67

"means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

I.e. Wealth, the production of products which makes money and the redistribution of wealth.

"a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." -Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08

I rest my fucking case.

Post: #68

(10-03-2013 11:02 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 10:07 PM)kosko Wrote:  He got in greasy by using backdoors and hustling his way into the right circles. He came up through the Chicago machine which is by far the most corrupt political faction in the country. I personally don't knock him for it if one wanted power and was in his shoes it was the only way to do it, he didn't have his dad to set the table for him like Bush jr. did.

That's not true at all. Obama never had any links to the Chicago political machine. He's not even from there; he's from Hawaii. He moved to Chicago as a complete outsider as an adult to work as a community organizer in the politically disenfranchised south side. He couldn't even get the attention of city officials to deal with asbestos issues in the public housing projects. He never ran for city politics and even lost his first race for a House congressional seat in 2000 to a long-time black incumbent, Bobby Rush. In fact, Bill Clinton flew out to Chicago at the last minute to campaign for Rush, not Obama. Obama lost BAD. It was such a devastating defeat that his family and closest friends encouraged him to give up politics altogether.

He then had a very low-key reentry into politics as a state senator and then later as a US senator, in a field of misfits, without ever passing through Chicago.

Some of his closest advisers are from his circle of independent friends in Hyde Park and the Uni of Chicago academic community (who eschew the politics of the city).

Obama continues to give mixed stories on his dealings with Rezko.. Obama on Rezko after he got booked: "That wasn't the Rezko I knew". Sure Obama and I am sure when my uncle bought fraudulent papers in the 80's to get into the country he thought he was getting the real deal, get real. Nobody comes out of Chicago without dealing with the 'Outfit' or the Machine. Its been around since the 50's and has let Chicago turn into a pit where huge sums of wealth sit in its belly and never seem to get out.

Chicago is a wasteland with a obscene amount of money rolling through it. It pumps out more money then Moscow and Shanghai yet its a dump outside of the loop and select areas. The Machine and all of its crooks have been fleecing this wealth off for decades. For close to 10 years not too long ago Chicago had more money pumping through it then New York City, up until the 80's Chicago still laid in ruins yet had one of the highest City GDP's on the planet. - where was all that money going?

Nadhmi Auchi, Tony Rezko, and Aiham Alsammarae, all three were Obama's main backers and arm-twisters in Chicago. All three have been booked on fraud and are heavily entrenched in Chicago's crookery. No disrespect but what your stating simply just sounds like the fluff his PR people have put out. I am sure in Bush Jr's memoirs he talks about how much of a dashing and cunning man he was when he was nothing more then rich blockhead with connections. With Obama I don't see people from the South Side singing his praise whom came up with him, many were hesitant of him, and many viewed him as a snake.

Nobody becomes President unless you have shaked the right hands, so I am not sure how a "outsider" whom was nothing more then a Ivy league grad (yes on those levels it means shit all, your amongst many and it does not entitle you to any sniff of real power) and low level organizer out the gate rose to the job out of know where - I don't buy it, your system in America does not work like that.

America has no had a legitimate President since JFK and even he was a crook too. All post him have been sheep, crooks, puppets, or all of the above. All represented different power factions whom looked to grab and wrestle power. The only outlier was Obama whom did not represent any specific power bloc. The Machine already had locks in D.C, it didn't need Obama, but Obama needed the Machine.

Obama is a compromised guy and a shill for everybody he greased to help get him where he is today. Once you see that his actions start to make a lot of sense. His first week in Office he had drafts of "Obamacare" ready to go from the Insurance Corps whom funnelled him cash to get him into the POTUS chair. Dude had the documents in hand and used hist first term to basically sell the shit. He was bought and paid for from day one, its the only way he got the job.

Post: #69

(10-03-2013 11:07 PM)McQueensPlayboyRules Wrote:  There's a word for fucking the rich and "taxing them to death" and it does not fucking work. Period.

It's called....

Socialism.

Good to know we have socialists on this forum.

Don't come banging on my door when shit hits the fan.

Top marginal tax rate in the USA under Eisenhower was 91%, it's now a tick under 40% under Obama. Was Eisenhower a socialist?

Of course that doesn't mean the rich in the 50s paid anywhere near that amount of their effective income in tax since so much of the income of the wealthy comes from capital gains.

Look man, I like you, but listen up...even Warren Buffet admits out his own mouth that he is taxed at effectively a lower rate than his secretary, even though he's the 2nd richest man in the country. Is this really fair?? Why should super rich people be able to have lower effective tax rates than the rest of us just because they are able to make their money through capital gains rather than wages like most of us peons? Do we really want to live in a country that looks more like a Latin America nation where 1% owns 99% of the resources? Well it's getting more and more like that every year.

Post: #70

Boy this thread got off message in a major way...

Post: #71

(10-04-2013 12:10 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Top marginal tax rate in the USA under Eisenhower was 91%, it's now a tick under 40% under Obama. Was Eisenhower a socialist?

Of course that doesn't mean the rich in the 50s paid anywhere near that amount of their effective income in tax since so much of the income of the wealthy comes from capital gains.

How many times should we tax the same income? Corporations already pay tax before the individual gets to pay an additional tax on the same money.

Quote:Look man, I like you, but listen up...even Warren Buffet admits out his own mouth that he is taxed at effectively a lower rate than his secretary, even though he's the 2nd richest man in the country. Is this really fair?? Why should super rich people be able to have lower effective tax rates than the rest of us just because they are able to make their money through capital gains rather than wages like most of us peons? Do we really want to live in a country that looks more like a Latin America nation where 1% owns 99% of the resources? Well it's getting more and more like that every year.

The rich pay around 70% of all taxes. How much is enough? Should they pay 90%? Hell, maybe they should pay 100%.

Post: #72

(10-04-2013 12:07 AM)kosko Wrote:  Obama continues to give mixed stories on his dealings with Rezko.

You do realize your entire post is an egregious rant without an iota of supportable evidence, don't you? The one link you provided is directed to a dubious and biased evangelical Christian website that offers no credible proof for any of its claims.

You can't expect to convince others of your beliefs when you can't even make a cogent argument. When you make especially controversial and damning allegations about one's character, the onus is on YOU to provide verifiable support for your argument. If you can't do that then you're simply not to be taken seriously in the marketplace of facts.

There isn't a shred of supportable evidence connecting Obama to the type of wild claims you're making.

Factcheck.org already dismissed the Rezko fabrications during the 2008 campaign.

Post: #73

As I said before, Obama made history that began rumblings of a political future once he became President of the Harvard Law Review. Even his conservative classmates (and friends) who later ran the Bush administration talk about how unparalleled the political tension was in that exclusive academic environment. Just watch this video of his time there and you will see he has barely changed his political style and temperament.

Post: #74

I've basically been a liberal all my life (though I happen to agree with alot of conservative ideas), but I've been increasingly dismayed over the past several years by alot of the stuff coming out of the so-called "liberal" camp. Some of it is just plain crazy. I used to really like Obama alot, and used to defend his actions because of what he inherited from dubya. But there's only so much you can defend his policies based on what he inherited before you begin making excuses for him.

Some of his policy decisions have been pretty disappointing. HC, have you listened to Cornell West's criticism of Obama?

Post: #75

(10-04-2013 12:23 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  The rich pay around 70% of all taxes. How much is enough? Should they pay 90%? Hell, maybe they should pay 100%.

The rich pay the most because the rich hoard the most money. Am I supposed to feel sorry for their predicament? That's what happens when the richest 400 families own more wealth than 50% of the ENTIRE country.

I'm curious, do things like this even bother you? At all?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...2493.story

I feel like for Republicans and Libertarians, even putting the issue of economic equity on the table is taboo. It's as if it's a subject that shouldn't even be breached. Like talking about masturbation in church. Anywhere else in the world people would be protesting in the streets. I think that the protestant ethic is why Americans, even many poor ones humbly accept the vast disparities of wealth in this country. Because we have been conditioned to believe that if you are rich, you are virtuous and hard-working(which often is the case, though sometimes not), and if you are poor or struggling, you're just lazy and unworthy and it's some failure on your part that you are not rich. And of course there are plenty of examples where that is the case. But there are people that worked hard their whole life and then had their job shipped overseas and they end up losing their house, and thus most their biggest nest-egg.

I realize there's only so much you can do about wealth inequality without turning into a Hugo Chavez and seizing everyone's property, which I don't want. But I think the issue has to at least be put on the table for serious national discussion and we need to figure out why the economy is only growing at the top and how we can make this trickle down, because it is NOT trickling down as Reaganomics promised.