Income Tax

[Guest]

It is tax season and just read an article that upsets me a lot. Cannot talk intelligently as many of you can about this, but I DO know we have a deficit problem....a few things from the article that are somewhat annoying..

....47% of the households in USA will pay NO income tax

....credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17.

....Much has been said about the tax cuts for the "wealthy" yet nobody talks about the tax cuts made by Obama using the "stimulus" bill which benefited only low and middle income folks.

....The top 10% of earners paid 73% of the tax

....Because of tax credits, etc. the bottom 40% make a profit meaning that their credits are more than income tax and they get a check from the government.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

Now, I openly admit to not being that smart, but something tells me that some things need to be changed in this country. When 40% of tax filers are using it as income from a government that is just about broke....maybe we should take another look at this.

[Guest]

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/06/outrageous-exxon-mobil-paid-no-income-tax-in-2009/ perhaps a change here might help

[Guest]

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/06/outrageous-exxon-mobil-paid-no-income-tax-in-2009/ perhaps a change here might help

Capitalism is not our problem. Government is our problem. Too much of it.

[Guest]

The possibility of a Value Added Tax is being thrown around. This is a consumption tax. The Fair Tax is a consumption tax, but it is in place of the income tax. The VAT is in addition to the income tax. When will it stop??

[Guest]

The possibility of a Value Added Tax is being thrown around. This is a consumption tax. The Fair Tax is a consumption tax, but it is in place of the income tax. The VAT is in addition to the income tax. When will it stop??

I must agree with you. I see us burdened with both higher income taxes and the new VAT. But we will all save with the new Obama care. Ya sure.

:highfive::highfive:

[Guest]

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/06/outrageous-exxon-mobil-paid-no-income-tax-in-2009/ perhaps a change here might help

The thread is about personal households, not corporations !!!

We all get that you are against capitalism !

[Guest]

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/06/outrageous-exxon-mobil-paid-no-income-tax-in-2009/ perhaps a change here might help

There are reasons why some co's pay no taxes sometimes. They are based on tax laws used to encourage co's to do what the gov't wants them to do in exchange fo legal loopholes.

[Guest]

to the tax credits still can come up with the government owing them money!!!!!!! And apparently it is a significant number that partake in this give away.
How is it right in ANY way shape or form to be giving non tax payers money?
And if it makes sense to some one PLEASE enlighten us as to why it does.
It cannot be what was intended when the tax credits were approved.

btk

[Guest]

The deficit spending problem cannot be solved with cutting spending alone. Again, I implore you all to do the arithmetic.

The real question is, what kind of tax increase will be most acceptable and effective?

It'll obviously have to be a combination of new or increased taxes. My own personal choices--in order--would be...
Increased tax rates for the lower half of the income spectrum. To think that the lower half of income earners in the U.S. pays only 3% of the tax revenues is ridiculous on its face.
Adopt a VAT tax system so common throughout the world. Keep it simple with few or no exceptions. Then the problem of so many corporations gaming the tax code to avoid paying taxes will go away.

Increase the tax rates on the top 5-7% of income tax filers in the U.S. The current rates, even after the increase resulting from the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts of 1991, are near the lowest they've ever been in the history of the income tax system.
Those three would be good for a start as far as I'm concerned. But they should be enacted along with STIFF reductions in federal spending...and I mean along the lines of 15-20% cuts in spending including cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and VA entitlement benefits.

[Guest]

We get it. You want tax increases.:rolleyes:

[Guest]

spending in Washington.As was tendered in another post the representatives are knowledgeable about the condition we are in. I still remain skeptical. Why? How can ANY responsible body even think of exploring raising revenues (taxes, et al) without a meaningful run at SIGNIFICANTLY reducing spending. Everybody knows all the favorite projects, pork, give aways, bailout programs, school loans, relief to other countries and on and on and on.

Raising the taxes without reigning in the spending is a waste of time....only procastinates the inevitable.

Until such time as the attitude of our representatives, including Obama changes from one of continually throwing money at programs domestically and world wide to that of a country on shaky financial ground.....there will be NO improvement.

btk

[Guest]

We get it. You want tax increases.:rolleyes:

Why would I want to increase taxes? That would cost me more money, as it would everyone else.

You keep denying my point that tax increases are inevitable. The deficit and ballooning debt problem cannot be resolved by spending cuts alone. As I've said many times before--do the arithmetic!

[Guest]

...How can ANY responsible body even think of exploring raising revenues (taxes, et al) without a meaningful run at SIGNIFICANTLY reducing spending...Raising the taxes without reigning in the spending is a waste of time....only procastinates the inevitable.

Agreed. 100%

[Guest]

You cut all the meaningless government agencies and the loafers who sit around looking for handouts, and you will be surprised how fast the deficit will go down.

[Guest]

You cut all the meaningless government agencies and the loafers who sit around looking for handouts, and you will be surprised how fast the deficit will go down.

Once again, Donna, do the arithmetic. Go research the federal budget, as I have. If ALL government spending except Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget was eliminated, we would still have an annual deficit and would be continuing to add to the national debt.

What you say sounds nifty, the kind of statements made by politicians running for office. BUT THE ARITHMETIC DOESN"T WORK!!

In the end, the solution will have to be both dramatic cuts in spending, including Social Security and Medicare, and in addition some pretty large increases in revenue (taxes). The numbers simply don't work any other way.

An almost automatic response to what I've said will certainly be...cut taxes to encourage economic growth and we'll grow our way out of the hole. Unfortunately, the Government Accounting Office has studied this and has estimated it would take 75 years of economic growth of greater than 10% per year to produce a balanced federal budget. The U.S. has had only one year in it's history with economic growth of 10%. Growing out of the problem we have won't work. It is going to have to be life-changing spending cuts combined with sizeable tax increases.

The only question is who will make those decisions? Will it be our Congress, or will it be our creditors? Watch what's happening to Greece to get an idea of what might happen to the U.S.

[Guest]

With an expanding government with employees receiving much greater pay and pension then private sector, we are on our way to the "haves" and "have nots" kind of society. It is similar to what Soviet Union had will have the same disastrous results.
You get a job with the Government you will have it made. Work for the private sector and you will be in poverty. The rich and connected will prosper and the majority of civilians will work for the elite.( gov. + rich)

[Guest]

The deficit spending problem cannot be solved with cutting spending alone. Again, I implore you all to do the arithmetic.

[/LIST]Those three would be good for a start as far as I'm concerned. But they should be enacted along with STIFF reductions in federal spending...and I mean along the lines of 15-20% cuts in spending including cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and VA entitlement benefits.

Instead of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, etc., why not start with the ridiculous salaries of Congress right along with all their perks? How about eliminating lobbyists, as promised? How about getting rid of pork as promised? Instead of cuts, how about starting with the fraud and waste in those "entitlement" programs that are already known. Part of the waste is the way, Medicare for instance, is designed. Instead of having to have procedures split out over several visits so that Medicare will pay, how about paying for all of them at once? Case in point: You go to the dermatologist and several lesions are diagnosed as cancerous. Some of the cancers are more costly to remove than the others depending on the type and procedure required. Medicare will pay to remove one only, not the multiples. Therefore, each one requires another visit for removal in order for Medicare to cover the charges. Supplemental insurance only covers the remaining 20% approved by Medicare after they have paid their 80%. Why not pay according to a set schedule for each procedure and do them all at one time?

My husband has coverage thru the VA and Medicare. Our company insurance only covered us for 10 years or to age 65, whichever came first. Private insurance? Out of the question because of cost and medical history. Even if they were forced to insure us, the premiums would be completely out of reach. We paid into Medicare while working and still do. Would you pay into any insurance and then not use it when you needed it? I didn't think so.

Unlike many others here, we are not wealthy, simply comfortable (so far). Did we plan for retirement? Yes. Did we plan for the economy to go south right along with our retirement? No.

[Guest]

Unlike many others here, we are not wealthy, simply comfortable (so far). Did we plan for retirement? Yes. Did we plan for the economy to go south right along with our retirement? No.


We are in the same position. We did everything right to save for our retirement. We sacrificed and lead a humble lifestyle so we might be comfortable in our golden years. We took for granted that our government would be frugal and stable on their part.
Our government has failed us and now our sacrifices seem silly. Thinking back maybe we should have spent our equity and savings to frivolously live a grand lifestyle like our government obviously did.

[Guest]

We took for granted that our government would be frugal and stable on their part.


Huh? The same government that has only had two balanced budgets since at least 1960? When did you think they would START being frugal?

[Guest]

Huh? The same government that has only had two balanced budgets since at least 1960? When did you think they would START being frugal?

Well, maybe frugal was too much to hope for. But I never expected someone like Obama coming around and doubling Bush's deficit in one year what it took Bush 8 years to accomplish.

[Guest]

If you raise tax rates on low taxable income earners you may reap a modest increase in revenues.

If you raise tax rates on the wealthy you will reduce revenues.

Not believing this means you do not understand the clever American society.

[Guest]

I think the intangibles don't get enough ink. When the business world perceives that an administration is anti-business, they will go to coasting mode, so to speak. They will ride down the street with their foot tapping the brakes. They will only use the gas pedal when necessary to just make it up the hill so they can coast all the way down the hill.
I have talked to people in small business and they are just holding on till things get better. They will not hire or spend money on capital investments. They will repair their machinery instead of replacing it with something better and more efficient. Alot of this mentality is based on history.
Most companies have their own culture. It is created form the CEO on down. When companies starts cutting back and having wage freezes, it's employees will reduce their spending on their own home budgets. The fear of layoffs start trickling down.

People see the president of USA as a sort of CEO. This president doesn't seem to have the best interest of it's employees at heart. The layoffs are constant. Job creation is basically nonexistent.
Until the intangibles are changed, we will not put much gas in the car. We will "ride" the brakes and not put the medal to the pedal.

[Guest]

I think the intangibles don't get enough ink. When the business world perceives that an administration is anti-business, they will go to coasting mode, so to speak. They will ride down the street with their foot tapping the brakes. They will only use the gas pedal when necessary to just make it up the hill so they can coast all the way down the hill.
I have talked to people in small business and they are just holding on till things get better. They will not hire or spend money on capital investments. They will repair their machinery instead of replacing it with something better and more efficient. Alot of this mentality is based on history.
Most companies have their own culture. It is created form the CEO on down. When companies starts cutting back and having wage freezes, it's employees will reduce their spending on their own home budgets. The fear of layoffs start trickling down.

People see the president of USA as a sort of CEO. This president doesn't seem to have the best interest of it's employees at heart. The layoffs are constant. Job creation is basically nonexistent.
Until the intangibles are changed, we will not put much gas in the car. We will "ride" the brakes and not put the medal to the pedal.

Yes you are correct.

The Democrats want higher taxes to redistribute wealth. They think they will get votes by doing so.

Democrats must know that by raising tax rates and taking money away from job producers they reduce the number of workers and therefore the tax revenues. Of course they know but all they care about is control of the votes.

[Guest]

...The Democrats want higher taxes to redistribute wealth. They think they will get votes by doing so.


Not believing this means you do not understand the clever American society.

Federal Budget = $3.8 trillion
Tax Revenues = $2.4 trillion
Deficit = $1.4 trillion
Total spending on Social Security, Medicare and Defense = $2.1 trillion
ALL other federal spending = $1.7 trillion

Go ahead. Balance the budget without any new taxes.

A-R-I-T-H-M-E-T-I-C !

[Guest]

...When the business world perceives that an administration is anti-business, they will go to coasting mode...They will ride down the street with their foot tapping the brakes. They will only use the gas pedal when necessary to just make it up the hill so they can coast all the way down the hill....we will not put much gas in the car. We will "ride" the brakes and not put the medal to the pedal.

Wow! This is the famous American free market system?

...The Democrats want higher taxes to redistribute wealth. They think they will get votes by doing so.


Not believing this means you do not understand the clever American society.

Federal Budget = $3.8 trillion
Tax Revenues = $2.4 trillion
Deficit = $1.4 trillion
Total spending on Social Security, Medicare and Defense = $2.1 trillion
ALL other federal spending = $1.7 trillion

Go ahead. Balance the budget without any new taxes. Show us all how it's done.

A-R-I-T-H-M-E-T-I-C !

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;259001]Wow! This is the famous American free market system?




Mock me all you want, but don't tell me that the market system is running on all the cylinders under this socialist leaning administration.

You want some more arithmetic? How much revenue is lost each week while people aren't paying taxes from non-existent pay checks and how much are we also losing from paying billions to those unemployed. who do you think is paying the unemployment checks?
Funny how problems go away when everybody is working.
What is the democrat leadership doing for jobs lately????

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8bQDqe2NPo&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

the U.S. congress since they do not intend to address one....as an earlier posted article quoted it containing too much controversial and emabarassing content.....especially with an upcoming election season.

The arithmetic is not an issue for any one of them.
Does anyone doubt the so called "budget" could be reduced to what we in business used to call essentials for survival only?

Then go after the sheltered non tax paying domestic and foreign corporations.

Isn't it obvious the representatives who are mostly lawyers live by and hide behind the law? They can say what is done/not done is legal or not illegal via the definition of the law. That does NOT mean it is right.
Remember lawyers are trained to defend murderers, rapists and fellow senators and congressmen/women....using the letter of the law.

btk

[Guest]

...go after the sheltered non tax paying domestic and foreign corporations.


I'm not disagreeing that this is necessary, but if I had suggested it many would have leaped at me because I had suggested raising taxes. After all, that's what you suggest.

As I said, yes corporate taxes is a place that ultimately Congress may be looking to increase revenues. Right now, of the $2.4 trillion in tax revenues, here are the sources...
Personal income taxes..............43.5%
Social Security taxes................42.3%
Corporate income taxes..............6.6%
All other sources........................7.6%


As I suggest that this may happen, I'm sure there are some who are reading this who will jump down my throat with suggestions that I study the Laffer Curve Theory, etc. It probably should be noted that about half of the Social Security tax revenues are actually collected from corporations, increasing their "real" tax rate to closer to 28% than only single digits.

I think by far the more likely way that Congress will consider to raise revenues will be the use of a consumption tax such as the Value Added Tax (VAT) so common in Europe. That tax will be less noticeable by any specific segment of taxpayers, but would have the capacity of raising revenues pretty dramatically. VAT tax rates in Europe are typically in the range of 18-25%, with much lower VAT rates applicable to basic necessities, such as foodstuffs. In addition to the VAT, the average income tax for a family with a couple of children in Europe averages in the range of 20-35%.

How comparable the total personal tax burden in th U.S. is compared to Europe is hard to calculate. Europeans tend to pay just an income tax plus the VAT. Those are the principal sources of tax revenues for European countries. For the most part, the more fiscally responsible countries live within those means. Greece is an example of one which does not.

Here in the U.S. we have a plethora of different taxes from different taxing bodies...federal income tax, social security tax, state, county and city income taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, special product taxes (gas, liquor, cigarettes, etc.) and on and on. It's possible I suppose, that Americans are already paying as much in taxes as their counterparts in Europe.

What is painfully obvious is that whatever the amount of taxes are being collected in the U.S., we are demanding that our government spend a lot more than that amount on various kinds of government services and entitlements. We can blame our political leaders for being spendthrifts, but remember that they wouldn't be so loose with the pursestrings if expenditures weren't being demanded by the electorate in exchange for their election votes.

[Guest]

Let us begin by insuring somehow that EVERYONE pays income taxes and is not using our government as an income source, as almost HALF of americans are doing !

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX8EswfGKQw&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

You want some more arithmetic? How much revenue is lost each week while people aren't paying taxes from non-existent pay checks and how much are we also losing from paying billions to those unemployed. who do you think is paying the unemployment checks?
Funny how problems go away when everybody is working.
What is the democrat leadership doing for jobs lately????

I'll take these in order.

1) Well, considering that we have 90% employment, one could to a rough guesstimate that we could have 11% more income tax revenue (I don't know how that correlates for differences in wages - like what kind of workers are most likely to be unemployed - or how that cascades into other taxes like sales and meals taxes).

2) The latest proposal is $9B additional for the latest Unemployment 'bailout' proposal. I don't know offhand how long it's supposed to be good for.

3) Most of the unemployment checks are paid for by the local state's Unemployment Insurance agency. It's a separate tax that employers pay into a fund out of which unemployment benefits are paid. Most of the time, it "pays it's own way". Employers who constantly fire more workers have to pay higher premiums (for presumably making bad hiring decisions). Employers are NOT penalized for workers who quit (and are, therefore, ineligible for benefits).

4) They're trying to promote green jobs - but not doing a good job of that. They're trying to ramp up infrastructure construction and maintenance spending - but that's slow going due to the lack of 'shovel ready' projects (with obstructionist planning rules probably getting in the way). But apparently lots of teachers and beaureaucrats are being hired.

[Guest]

I'll take these in order.

1) Well, considering that we have 90% employment, one could to a rough guesstimate that we could have 11% more income tax revenue (I don't know how that correlates for differences in wages - like what kind of workers are most likely to be unemployed - or how that cascades into other taxes like sales and meals taxes).

2) The latest proposal is $9B additional for the latest Unemployment 'bailout' proposal. I don't know offhand how long it's supposed to be good for.

3) Most of the unemployment checks are paid for by the local state's Unemployment Insurance agency. It's a separate tax that employers pay into a fund out of which unemployment benefits are paid. Most of the time, it "pays it's own way". Employers who constantly fire more workers have to pay higher premiums (for presumably making bad hiring decisions). Employers are NOT penalized for workers who quit (and are, therefore, ineligible for benefits).

4) They're trying to promote green jobs - but not doing a good job of that. They're trying to ramp up infrastructure construction and maintenance spending - but that's slow going due to the lack of 'shovel ready' projects (with obstructionist planning rules probably getting in the way). But apparently lots of teachers and beaureaucrats are being hired.

The real figures for unemployment hovers around 20%. That includes people who have given up, people who are working part time and people who are over qualified for their present employment. My guess is that would bring the revenues to closer to 25%.

Don't kid yourself that the employers are paying the people who aren't working. They only cover the first 6 months or so. Congress has extended unemployment to 24 months.

[Guest]

Let us begin by insuring somehow that EVERYONE pays income taxes and is not using our government as an income source, as almost HALF of americans are doing !

We are getting nowhere trying to tell fiscal Liberals the facts of life on Taxing job producers.

They refuse to listen because they depend on votes from the non-producers. Keeping them on the dole provides the votes.

Raising taxes reduces payrolls and increases those on the dole which increases Liberal voters.

The arithmatic is simple: reducing taxes on businesses and the producers leaves more resources with the producers and always results in more jobs and more government revenues. More jobs cuts the welfare costs.

It is hopeles for us to keep trying to convince Fiscal Liberals of this basic fact.

[Guest]

...The arithmatic is simple: reducing taxes on businesses and the producers leaves more resources with the producers and always results in more jobs and more government revenues. More jobs cuts the welfare costs.

It is hopeles for us to keep trying to convince Fiscal Liberals of this basic fact.

Well, not quite, Cashman. I'll address these in reverse order.
I suspect you might be referring to me as a "fiscal liberal" (if not, forget this). I am a fiscal conservative. That is, I believe that government spends too much and however much it spends, expenditures should be no greater than tax revenues--no deficit spending! We must begin to spend less than we take in and begin to pay down the enormous national debt.

What I am however is a fiscal realist. While I understand the economic theories, I also understand the numbers themselves. As you know, as much as I would hope it's not the case, I'm convinced that to solve the problems of deficit spending and ballooning national debt, it will take both drastic spending cuts as well as substantially increased taxes. Both will substantially change the American way of life. The arithmetic simply doesn't work any other way.

But I disagree with you on the thought that reducing taxes always leaves more resources with producers and always results in more jobs and government revenues.

First, reducing taxes on the producers doesn't increase spending, demand, the need for more production, more jobs and then more tax revenues. For that to work, the reduced taxes must put money in consumers pockets, not the producers.

But even that doesn't work too well anymore. That theory worked well for 30-40 years when the U.S. savings rate was near zero. Then any money from reduced personal taxes went immediately to fund more spending, starting the cycle mentioned above. But economists are almost unanimous in noting that there has been a structural change in the U.S. economy. The core savings rate is now about 4%, up from zero. Almost all economists believe this change to be permanent.

The effect of an increased savings rate is that tax savings are now being applied most often to the reduction of debts and/or savings--not spending. Paying off debt or saving doesn't create one new job, increases in GDP or increased tax revenue.

Paying off debt and saving doesn't produce any new spending, jobs and increased tax revenues. The theory will still work, but on a much more watered down basis. Until taxes are cut substantially more than the 4% core savings rate, there is almost no new spending and very few new jobs are created, and certainly no increased tax revenues.

I did the arithmetic on this idea in another post. In order to have personal tax cuts have a positive effect on spending, jobs and new tax revenues, the cuts would have to be of a size that would make an already critical level of deficit spending an almost fatal blow to our economy. An 8% cut in personal taxes, as an example, would increase the annual deficit from $1.4 trillion to almost $1.7 trillion!

George Bush found out that the old, oft-repeated theories didn't work with the tax rebates in 2007. The effect on employment and increased tax revenue was nil because almost all the recipients of the rebates paid off debt or saved the money. Even if personal taxes were reduced again now, there would be little if any increased economic activity and employment because the money would be directed to debt reduction and savings.
So Cashman, when you say "the arithmetic is simple", I'd suggest you actually DO the arithmetic. You may change your mind and not just keep repeating all those old maxims and adages which you claim are "basic facts" but are decidedly not.

[Guest]

But why do we need to raise taxes if 47% are not paying taxes? Why not just change the tax laws so that EVERYONE pays taxes to some degree?

[Guest]

But why do we need to raise taxes if 47% are not paying taxes? Why not just change the tax laws so that EVERYONE pays taxes to some degree?

A flat tax would go a long ways to stability but that would ruin the system that is advantageous to the politicians. Government is the problem. Too much of it is a bigger problem.

[Guest]

VK, I'm just trying to understand your theories and educate myself. Are you a Keynesian?

[Guest]

But why do we need to raise taxes if 47% are not paying taxes? Why not just change the tax laws so that EVERYONE pays taxes to some degree?

Good idea. Personally, I think a VAT would raise the most revenue, be less noticed than a change in the personal tax rates, and would wind up targeting exactly that segment of the population who is paying so little and benefitting so greatly from government programs.

A VAT tax is a consumption tax and is a definite shift away from the progressive taxation system we have now (lower income earners pay a smaller percentage of their incomes in taxes than higher income earners).

The liberals will argue that a consumption tax places an unfair and disproportionate burden on the lower income classes because a much greater proportion of their income is spent on consumables than the higher income classes. Frankly, I don't know what position the conservative right would take, other than maybe no tax is any good. (Remember, candidates of both parties are pandering for the votes of the lower classes.)

But one thing is for sure according to my analysis--tax revenues are going to have to be increased substantially.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=
But one thing is for sure according to my analysis--tax revenues are going to have to be increased substantially.[/QUOTE]

Keep beating your tax drum VK. You give them more money, they will find a way to use it to buy more votes. We are on the Titanic and the politicians are rearranging the deck chairs.

[Guest]

VK, I'm just trying to understand your theories and educate myself. Are you a Keynesian?

Hmmm, never thought about that much. I'd have called myself a pragmatist, but there's no such macroeconomic theory.

There are probably a dozen or more macroeconomic theories, but maybe those of John Maynard Keynes is on one end of the spectrum and those of Milton Freidman might be on the other end.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

Friedman became the main advocate opposing Keynesianism. Friedman argued the central government could not micromanage the economy because people would realize what the government was doing and change their behavior to neutralize such policies. Friedman's claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective during depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to decrease mass unemployment.

Simply put, I guess, Keynes says that there is a definite role for government in neutralizing bad decisions by the private sector and using fiscal policy to smooth the business cycle. Friedman argues that the free market is most efficient in achieving economic results and that entrepreneurial and profit-motivated decisions will always result in the most favorable economic outcomes.

Given the choice of one end of the spectrum or the other, I'd definitely side with John Maynard Keynes. The events of at least 4-5 major economic crises just in the last fifty years seems to support Keynes' theory that there is a definite role for government in the overall management of the economy. When government was permitted to play a strong role in the oversight of the economy, things ticked along pretty well. When political decisions were made to reduce government's authority over the economy, really bad things happened...as we all so sadly know now.

[Guest]

...We are on the Titanic and the politicians are rearranging the deck chairs.

Sadly, you may be right, Donna.

So that seems to leave us with a couple of choices--try to do our tiny little thing to possibly change that outcome. Or simply sit back on a comfortable deck chair and enjoy the ride to the bottom.

Our generation might not even get our feet wet. But ohh, future generations will suffer a lot while drowning as the result of what our generation did and didn't do.

[Guest]

Sadly, you may be right, Donna.

So that seems to leave us with a couple of choices--try to do our tiny little thing to possibly change that outcome. Or simply sit back on a comfortable deck chair and enjoy the ride to the bottom.

Our generation might not even get our feet wet. But ohh, future generations will suffer a lot while drowning as the result of what our generation did and didn't do.

Yes, "LBJ, LBJ have we spent our grandchildren's future today" ( a little take-off on an old anti-war chant)

[Guest]

Well, not quite, Cashman. I'll address these in reverse order.
I suspect you might be referring to me as a "fiscal liberal" (if not, forget this). I am a fiscal conservative. That is, I believe that government spends too much and however much it spends, expenditures should be no greater than tax revenues--no deficit spending! We must begin to spend less than we take in and begin to pay down the enormous national debt.

What I am however is a fiscal realist. While I understand the economic theories, I also understand the numbers themselves. As you know, as much as I would hope it's not the case, I'm convinced that to solve the problems of deficit spending and ballooning national debt, it will take both drastic spending cuts as well as substantially increased taxes. Both will substantially change the American way of life. The arithmetic simply doesn't work any other way.

But I disagree with you on the thought that reducing taxes always leaves more resources with producers and always results in more jobs and government revenues.

First, reducing taxes on the producers doesn't increase spending, demand, the need for more production, more jobs and then more tax revenues. For that to work, the reduced taxes must put money in consumers pockets, not the producers.

But even that doesn't work too well anymore. That theory worked well for 30-40 years when the U.S. savings rate was near zero. Then any money from reduced personal taxes went immediately to fund more spending, starting the cycle mentioned above. But economists are almost unanimous in noting that there has been a structural change in the U.S. economy. The core savings rate is now about 4%, up from zero. Almost all economists believe this change to be permanent.

The effect of an increased savings rate is that tax savings are now being applied most often to the reduction of debts and/or savings--not spending. Paying off debt or saving doesn't create one new job, increases in GDP or increased tax revenue.

Paying off debt and saving doesn't produce any new spending, jobs and increased tax revenues. The theory will still work, but on a much more watered down basis. Until taxes are cut substantially more than the 4% core savings rate, there is almost no new spending and very few new jobs are created, and certainly no increased tax revenues.

I did the arithmetic on this idea in another post. In order to have personal tax cuts have a positive effect on spending, jobs and new tax revenues, the cuts would have to be of a size that would make an already critical level of deficit spending an almost fatal blow to our economy. An 8% cut in personal taxes, as an example, would increase the annual deficit from $1.4 trillion to almost $1.7 trillion!

George Bush found out that the old, oft-repeated theories didn't work with the tax rebates in 2007. The effect on employment and increased tax revenue was nil because almost all the recipients of the rebates paid off debt or saved the money. Even if personal taxes were reduced again now, there would be little if any increased economic activity and employment because the money would be directed to debt reduction and savings.
So Cashman, when you say "the arithmetic is simple", I'd suggest you actually DO the arithmetic. You may change your mind and not just keep repeating all those old maxims and adages which you claim are "basic facts" but are decidedly not.


No fiscal conservative talks like you do. I disagree with everything you say about taxes. Your understanding of economics is tainted by your ideology.

I may agree that a VAT will work because all individuals will pay it therefore generating more revenues.
Of course I would want spending cuts first and Income taxes either eliminated or cut very low which will not happen if Liberals have anything to say about it.

[Guest]

How about the deal that was supposed to have happened in previous administrations?

One side says "I'll raise taxes $1 for every $1 you cut from the budget"

[Guest]

...No fiscal conservative talks like you do. I disagree with everything you say about taxes....

OK, so you don't believe I'm a fiscal conservative, as I said I was. I tried to describe my beliefs in a couple of sentences.

"I believe that government spends too much and however much it spends, expenditures should be no greater than tax revenues--no deficit spending! We must begin to spend less than we take in and begin to pay down the enormous national debt."

I'll assume that you believe that you are a fiscal conservative. If I'm not and you are, do me the favor of summarizing your beliefs, or alternatively what you disagree with in what I said I believed in?

What I said about taxes was that the federal budget couldn't possibly be balanced without raising taxes. If you disagree with that statement, I'll ask yet one more time--show us all the arithmetic where the budget can be balanced and payments begun to reduce the national debt without increasing revenues (raising taxes).

[Guest]

OK, so you don't believe I'm a fiscal conservative, as I said I was. I tried to describe my beliefs in a couple of sentences.

"I believe that government spends too much and however much it spends, expenditures should be no greater than tax revenues--no deficit spending! We must begin to spend less than we take in and begin to pay down the enormous national debt."

I'll assume that you believe that you are a fiscal conservative. If I'm not and you are, do me the favor of summarizing your beliefs, or alternatively what you disagree with in what I said I believed in?

What I said about taxes was that the federal budget couldn't possibly be balanced without raising taxes. If you disagree with that statement, I'll ask yet one more time--show us all the arithmetic where the budget can be balanced and payments begun to reduce the national debt without increasing revenues (raising taxes).

Look there is no way I can explain myself anymore than I have.

You seem to be not able to accept what I have said because you may claim to be a fiscal conservative but obviously think like a Liberal.

I am sure and every fiscal conservative in the world is sure that it is not possible to be a Liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues because they are incompatible. If you think you are both you will never balance any government budget.

All of us want to help those in need. Conservatives feel that Liberals do not care what happens to the deficits as long as they can win elections by convincing those in need that they do not have to worry about taking care of themselves.

By keeping and increasing the number of those in on the dole Liberals will get the votes they are buying but they are using untruthful pseudo Liberal social approaches which are not and will never work financially.

[Guest]

Look there is no way I can explain myself anymore than I have.


If you can't explain what you really believe in, how are you so dead set against anything that I've said? This is like having a debate with only one side trying to present a thesis and trying to prove it with facts. I said what I believed in in two sentences and asked you to do the same so we could see where we differed. Your answer? "...there is no way I can explain myself anymore than I have." Not much more debate possible, methinks. ...I am sure and every fiscal conservative in the world is sure that it is not possible to be a Liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues because they are incompatible. If you think you are both you will never balance any government budget...

It becomes a matter of priorities. The fiscal crisis we find ourselves in may be well nigh impossible to solve. But let me give you a simple example of what I mean by "priorities". I'm not proposing this, but using it as an example of how one can be both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Try this...

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing the U.S. something in the range of $200 billion a year. We've been at it for eight years now, back and forth between the two countries, and making little discernable progress. We organized an election in Afghanistan and the guy that got elected is totally corrupt, involved in the drug trade, and is now threatening us that he will throw his government over to the Taliban, which is who we've been fighting. Our efforts there are a near perfect definition of pouring money down a rat hole.

If we were to simply get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving what will happen to happen, arguably we'd have $200 billion in our pockets to spend on something else. And we wouldn't even have to touch the "non war" part of the defense budget.

With that $200 billion, we could completely fund the recently-passed healthcare bill, which if it did nothing else got health insurance for 30-40 million Americans who didn't have any, and still have $100 billion left over each year to start paying down the national debt.

That's what I mean by "priorities" and that's how one can be both a fiscal conservative as well as a social liberal. Remember, interpret what I've said as an example of what government can do. I'm sure you could insert any number of inefficient and ineffective government spending programs instead of the war, as well as other high priority social programs that could be funded with the savings of cutting unneeded spending.

[Guest]

How about 30 million liberals pay $5000 each to a fund. That fund will now have 150 billion and you guys can feel good about yourselves and we will let you take all the kudo's. Then we all could be happy.

[Guest]

It's the same thing with the involvement of the government in every aspect of our lives. Government needs to play less a role in individuals lives. I believe in freedom. I understand your example was broad and not an exact example, VK, but for the point of discussion...What is happening to Obama's war? Where is his “a stronger, smarter, more comprehensive strategy” that would build schools, hospitals, roads, and enterprise zones, addressing issues such as energy and trade. Where are those efforts?

[Guest]

How about 30 million liberals pay $5000 each to a fund. That fund will now have 150 billion and you guys can feel good about yourselves...

Therein lies the problem. No one ever does the arithmetic. If the 30 million liberals raised a $150 billion fund, that would only cover about 10% of the deficit...only 3.9% of the federal budget.

The problem is a whole lot bigger than that.

[Guest]

Therein lies the problem. No one ever does the arithmetic. If the 30 million liberals raised a $150 billion fund, that would only cover about 10% of the deficit...only 3.9% of the federal budget.

The problem is a whole lot bigger than that.

I was referring to your concern about the uninsured, but you knew that.

[Guest]

It's the same thing with the involvement of the government in every aspect of our lives. Government needs to play less a role in individuals lives. I believe in freedom. I understand your example was broad and not an exact example, VK, but for the point of discussion...What is happening to Obama's war? Where is his “a stronger, smarter, more comprehensive strategy” that would build schools, hospitals, roads, and enterprise zones, addressing issues such as energy and trade. Where are those efforts?

The reason there is so little meaningful national debate is that there is so much hatred for President Obama that it gets in the way of any constructive thinking. The same is absolutely true here in this forum. I don't know where those projects that you quoted stand; I don't even remember the quote. What I do know is that Congress is the branch of our government that creates legislation to do that kind of stuff. Specifically, the House provides the funding for projects like that. All the hateful talk about the President does nothing more than camoflage the reral problem...the U.S. Congress.

I don't know about all the specifics you mentioned, but the fact that the economy is recovering is undeniable. By virtually every measure, the economy is climbing out of near fatal depression. Unemployment is still too high and it remains to be seen if there has really been some sort of structural change that has lead to a higher level of permanent unemployment. For decades our political leaders have permitted our manufacturing jobs to migrate to other countries. Now when we need those industries to employ people in response to economic stimulus, it isn't happening. That's Obama's fault?

Blame him if you wish. But all the anti-Obama vitriol that is being mustered is dangerous in that is misdirects our attention from the continued irresponsibility of the Congress. I submit that performance of Congress has nothing to do with the political party or ideology represented by the majority. The GOP started the slide down the slippery slope of fiscal irresponsibility and the Democrats have continued it. If the Republicans regain the majority in the fall elections, they will continue the dysfunctional, bordering on fatal governance this country has experienced. In the meantime, the partisans on their side will be celebrating, dancing in the streets, and not paying any attention to the fact that they won't have changed anything. They'll probably still be hatefully criticizing Obama. To what end?

We're the ones at fault. We're the ones who somehow morphed from being a people who believed in disciplining kids, making sure they studied, stayed married once we said "I do", worked hard to provide for our families, went to church, and respected one another. In only a few decades all that has changed...all of it. Now we're a country of greedy "me first", unwilling to work hard unless we get really great pay, always blaming someone else for our life circumstances, and more importantly expecting...no demanding that everyone else bail us out of our problems and pay for everything we're not willing to work for ourselves. We've elected representatives in our Congress who perfectly reflect the will of the people who elected them. Until we change they won't. It won't have anything to do with which party or which ideology sits in the majority or occupies the White House. Unless we change, they won't.

We're headed the way of the Roman Empire in ancient history, the British Empire more recently, and Greece as we sit and watch it happen. We haven't learned anything from any of that experience. WE'RE the ones at fault, not President Obama or the army of soundbite-spitting, egocentric liars that occupy the halls of the U.S. Capitol. We're letting it happen as we argue among ourselves about minutia, letting our hatred build and using empty metaphors that make us feel good but accomplish nothing.

As I said before, priorities are what we should understand. Priorities are what we should be communicating to Congress. Not meaningless sayings. There's a lot of things that government does well, that we really wouldn't want to be "out of our lives". The list is a long one and doesn't bear repeating here. What does need greater attention are those things that government does not do well, does inefficiently, or for no common purpose. If we identify those things and demand they be stopped, we have a chance of reversing our fiscal slide to second-rate status and eventually oblivion.

But continuing to bitterly criticize the man who was elected as our President as the result of the democratic process we all have said we think is the best in the world, first of all is simply wrong, but more importantly blurs the problems we really should be focusing on.

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0M__0Z1pjg&feature=player_embedded#!

[Guest]

Wow, I didn't realize that by making a point by questioning Obama's promises during a speech November 30, 2009, at the United States Military Academy at West Point about the justification to spend $30 billion to send additional troops to Afghanistan was "hatred toward the President" or "britterly criticizing" of him.

I believe people should take thought and consider what is going on in Washington.

You expressed my point of government involvement screwing things up pretty fairly: "the reral problem...the U.S. Congress." And also you statements:

"We're the ones at fault. We're the ones who somehow morphed from being a people who believed in disciplining kids, making sure they studied, stayed married once we said "I do", worked hard to provide for our families, went to church, and respected one another. In only a few decades all that has changed...all of it. Now we're a country of greedy "me first", unwilling to work hard unless we get really great pay, always blaming someone else for our life circumstances, and more importantly expecting...no demanding that everyone else bail us out of our problems and pay for everything we're not willing to work for ourselves. We've elected representatives in our Congress who perfectly reflect the will of the people who elected them. Until we change they won't. It won't have anything to do with which party or which ideology sits in the majority or occupies the White House. Unless we change, they won't," go even further to show my point of how more government, government regulations, and special interests' involvement in our lives has lead us on a dismal downhill spiral. Unions, government bailouts, government run schools, political correctness, the nanny state. et al. I agree with you on that.

But to quote John Dalberg-Acton, on the point I disagree with you about, "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan-speech-text-excerpts_n_376088.html

[Guest]

If you can't explain what you really believe in, how are you so dead set against anything that I've said? This is like having a debate with only one side trying to present a thesis and trying to prove it with facts. I said what I believed in in two sentences and asked you to do the same so we could see where we differed. Your answer? "...there is no way I can explain myself anymore than I have." Not much more debate possible, methinks.

It becomes a matter of priorities. The fiscal crisis we find ourselves in may be well nigh impossible to solve. But let me give you a simple example of what I mean by "priorities". I'm not proposing this, but using it as an example of how one can be both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Try this...

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing the U.S. something in the range of $200 billion a year. We've been at it for eight years now, back and forth between the two countries, and making little discernable progress. We organized an election in Afghanistan and the guy that got elected is totally corrupt, involved in the drug trade, and is now threatening us that he will throw his government over to the Taliban, which is who we've been fighting. Our efforts there are a near perfect definition of pouring money down a rat hole.

If we were to simply get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving what will happen to happen, arguably we'd have $200 billion in our pockets to spend on something else. And we wouldn't even have to touch the "non war" part of the defense budget.

With that $200 billion, we could completely fund the recently-passed healthcare bill, which if it did nothing else got health insurance for 30-40 million Americans who didn't have any, and still have $100 billion left over each year to start paying down the national debt.

That's what I mean by "priorities" and that's how one can be both a fiscal conservative as well as a social liberal. Remember, interpret what I've said as an example of what government can do. I'm sure you could insert any number of inefficient and ineffective government spending programs instead of the war, as well as other high priority social programs that could be funded with the savings of cutting unneeded spending.

I am finished with this. If you have some kind of ideology block there is no way you Will ever understand me. You keep repeating stuff from Liberal blogs
and Lame Stream Press. You think America and Americans are different now and I do not.

I have more important things to do than trying to open closed minds.

[Guest]

Villages Kahuna says

"But continuing to bitterly criticize the man who was elected as our President as the result of the democratic process we all have said we think is the best in the world, first of all is simply wrong, but more importantly blurs the problems we really should be focusing on."

VK, I want to begin by saying as I have said before....I read your posts and always take something away from all of them. You make very good and valid points and I find myself agreeing with you often.

I read this post this morning and I couldnt get it out of my mind. I didnt want to respond this morning simply to disagree, but the more I have thought about it, the more I need to respond.

You say it is "simply wrong" to criticize this President. I beg to differ with you on many different levels.

First, as you know I do not trust this man....I have never and will never trust him. Even when I may agree with some small thing he does or says, I agree with you that the congress deserves heat big time, but to say that it is "simply wrong" to be critical of this man is absurd.

Let me begin by using the standard party line which in this case is valid. If this is just "wrong", what words would you use for the hatful, PERSONAL attacks on our last President. They were not limited to spending but cut to his personal life, habits and college days. All the while we ignore this current Presidents doctors telling him he has to quit smoking and drinking during his last physical. A President who had actually HIDDEN his past grades and whose behavior as a young man (a BIG deal for the past President) is basically ignored.

Now, we have a President who lies...if you wish I will spell out all the lies he has told...NOT CAMPAIGN EXAGGERATION, but flat out lies, and nobody, INCLUDING you ever calls him on them...it seems to be ok. He never talks about them nor does the press.

We have a President who has no press conferences...do you think the questions and followups might be the reason ?

Now you feel that criticism of this man is "wrong", but we have a sitting President who attacked a network by name...who has spoken down to a group of folks (the **********) as if they were thugs...this from a man who worked for ACORN.

Do you recall on this forum even, how if you criticize Obama you were deemed a racist...and now the press and democratic party talk always about how many whites are in the tea bag movement as if that made a difference. You heard me speak of Alinsky much during the primary and the campaign, and the Alinsky methods are so apparent with this group in the WH !

I thought during the primary he was conning the country....I thought during the campaign he was conning the country and I THINK MORE THAN I EVER DID that he is conning the country. You may feel it is unimportant the direction this man is taking us...of course he is not the total reason for any deficit....but he has us going in a direction that is simply fatal, not only fiscally but also philosophically !

Sorry VK...while I respect much of what you say, when you stand up and say it is "simply wrong" to criticize this man I have to stand up and tell you that you are just plain wrong. You always seem to have a veiled defense of him and this particular statement just framed it for me.

[Guest]

Villages Kahuna says

"But continuing to bitterly criticize the man who was elected as our President as the result of the democratic process we all have said we think is the best in the world, first of all is simply wrong, but more importantly blurs the problems we really should be focusing on."

VK, I want to begin by saying as I have said before....I read your posts and always take something away from all of them. You make very good and valid points and I find myself agreeing with you often.

I read this post this morning and I couldnt get it out of my mind. I didnt want to respond this morning simply to disagree, but the more I have thought about it, the more I need to respond.

You say it is "simply wrong" to criticize this President. I beg to differ with you on many different levels.

First, as you know I do not trust this man....I have never and will never trust him. Even when I may agree with some small thing he does or says, I agree with you that the congress deserves heat big time, but to say that it is "simply wrong" to be critical of this man is absurd.

Let me begin by using the standard party line which in this case is valid. If this is just "wrong", what words would you use for the hatful, PERSONAL attacks on our last President. They were not limited to spending but cut to his personal life, habits and college days. All the while we ignore this current Presidents doctors telling him he has to quit smoking and drinking during his last physical. A President who had actually HIDDEN his past grades and whose behavior as a young man (a BIG deal for the past President) is basically ignored.

Now, we have a President who lies...if you wish I will spell out all the lies he has told...NOT CAMPAIGN EXAGGERATION, but flat out lies, and nobody, INCLUDING you ever calls him on them...it seems to be ok. He never talks about them nor does the press.

We have a President who has no press conferences...do you think the questions and followups might be the reason ?

Now you feel that criticism of this man is "wrong", but we have a sitting President who attacked a network by name...who has spoken down to a group of folks (the **********) as if they were thugs...this from a man who worked for ACORN.

Do you recall on this forum even, how if you criticize Obama you were deemed a racist...and now the press and democratic party talk always about how many whites are in the tea bag movement as if that made a difference. You heard me speak of Alinsky much during the primary and the campaign, and the Alinsky methods are so apparent with this group in the WH !

I thought during the primary he was conning the country....I thought during the campaign he was conning the country and I THINK MORE THAN I EVER DID that he is conning the country. You may feel it is unimportant the direction this man is taking us...of course he is not the total reason for any deficit....but he has us going in a direction that is simply fatal, not only fiscally but also philosophically !

Sorry VK...while I respect much of what you say, when you stand up and say it is "simply wrong" to criticize this man I have to stand up and tell you that you are just plain wrong. You always seem to have a veiled defense of him and this particular statement just framed it for me.

for a very good post. I too, was taken back with VK's ridiculous statement about criticizing Obama. I'll say this for Bush: he took criticism like a man , not like a whiney school girl. You never heard Bush picking a fight with a television network either. Or calling a police officer "stupid" for arresting his obnoxious friend. Bush has more class then Obama. Period.

[Guest]

You aren't be talking about the last President are you? Wow you really do hate Obama don't you?

[Guest]

You aren't be talking about the last President are you? Wow you really do hate Obama don't you?

If you are talking to me, no I don't hate Obama. I hate his policies and his ideals.

[Guest]

You aren't be talking about the last President are you? Wow you really do hate Obama don't you?


I dont use terms like HATE as you do so freely and openly...dont like the word.

I have NO respect for Obama..he lies.

I have NO respect for Obama...he is everything that you folks used to call the last President.....I suppose you think that smoking, drinking, doing drugs in your youth, covering your grades, cavorting with radicals, having a mentor for 20 years who is a black activist and big time hater is something we should all aspire to.

All people have faults,and that includes our last President.....but your distaste seems to have a party hue to it. You only responded to part...talk to us about Obama lies...Obama absolutely ignoring having a press conference...Obama attacking...yes he did..attacking a news network..UNHEARD OF....mocking from the White House those who oppose him. You didnt hear that from the last administration or the one before...WAKE UP...forget PARTY..think country !

[Guest]

I dont use terms like HATE as you do so freely and openly...dont like the word.

I have NO respect for Obama..he lies.

I have NO respect for Obama...he is everything that you folks used to call the last President.....I suppose you think that smoking, drinking, doing drugs in your youth, covering your grades, cavorting with radicals, having a mentor for 20 years who is a black activist and big time hater is something we should all aspire to.

All people have faults,and that includes our last President.....but your distaste seems to have a party hue to it. You only responded to part...talk to us about Obama lies...Obama absolutely ignoring having a press conference...Obama attacking...yes he did..attacking a news network..UNHEARD OF....mocking from the White House those who oppose him. You didnt hear that from the last administration or the one before...WAKE UP...forget PARTY..think country !

Bucco, your intense disrespect for Barack Obama has continued unabated since pretty early in his campaign. But he was elected and he will be our President at least until January 20, 2012. That's just a simple fact.

I voted for George Bush for his first term, but as his administration progressed I grew to dislike his political style, the people he surrounded himself with, as well as his abandonment of things he promised while campaigning. I don't think my feelings were quite as intense as yours are for Obama and I'm glad they weren't. I made the decision not to vote for a second Bush term about halfway thru his first. But then I tried to spend my time trying to understand the issues and listening to those that were campaigning to replace him.

I'm glad I did. As you know, my consideration lead me to vote for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best candidate for President at the time I entered the voting booth. My confidence and certainty with my decision was far from 100%, but I had only one choice.

I haven't been at all happy with all that President Obama has done so far, but it's certainly not all bad. I have decided not to vote for him for a second term. But I'm glad I won't be inhibited by intense emotions against him any more than I was for George Bush. While I won't vote for Barack Obama again, I'm glad my emotions will permit me to think about more important issues than those that you cite and recite as you have again above. Bush and Obama were both our Presidents, for better or worse. If nothing else, both occupy an office that all Americans should respect, even if they don't have strong feelings for the person.

I think such intense emotion interferes with the ability to properly assess what is being done by this administration, and maybe more importantly what's not being done. Not everything this administration has done has been bad. But the intense and growing enmity between the Obama partisans and those of his opponents is clearly interfering with the governance of the country. Too much time is being spent on partisan politics and nowhere near enough on addressing the many increasingly critical problems facing the country. We are a country that is in a tailspin in many respects, but those in the cockpit are more interested in winning the wrestling match over the steering wheel than they are in preventing the inevitable crash.

Just think about how our Congress is currently operating. Unless I've missed a vote, in recent months any legislation sponsored by the Democrats or proposed by the President is opposed 100% by the Republicans. They can't even reach some sort of agreement on legislation that the GOP sponsored themselves only a year or so ago! There are no statesmen left, no conciliators, no negotiators. All we have are partisans, and they are growing more and more fractious and recalcitrant. Unless things change, the roles may be reversed if the GOP regains control of one or both houses of Congress. Does anyone think this is good for this country? Does anyone believe that the form of government designed by our founders is what we're seeing in 2010? My answer is a resounding NO! to both those questions.

As I said, Barack Obama will be President for another three years or so. It might be a more productive exercise to simply put Barack Obama aside to a back corner of your mind, and concentrate on really understanding what we need to demand and expect from the next President of the United States and the Congress that will form his administration. To think about and write letters such as quoted above, again and again and again doesn't accomplish a whole lot in my mind. You won't be able to change him for another three years, so why get all upset by your feelings for the man? You and I are both going to vote for someone other than Barack Obama for POTUS in 2012. I'd much rather be discussing the issues that will be facing those candidates than "listening" again to how much you disrespect the current occupant of the office of President.

Sorry for the criticism. It is intended to be constructive.

[Guest]

Bucco, your intense disrespect for Barack Obama has continued unabated since pretty early in his campaign. But he was elected and he will be our President at least until January 20, 2012. That's just a simple fact.

I voted for George Bush for his first term, but as his administration progressed I grew to dislike his political style, the people he surrounded himself with, as well as his abandonment of things he promised while campaigning. I don't think my feelings were quite as intense as yours are for Obama and I'm glad they weren't. I made the decision not to vote for a second Bush term about halfway thru his first. But then I tried to spend my time trying to understand the issues and listening to those that were campaigning to replace him.

I'm glad I did. As you know, my consideration lead me to vote for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best candidate for President at the time I entered the voting booth. My confidence and certainty with my decision was far from 100%, but I had only one choice.

I haven't been at all happy with all that President Obama has done so far, but it's certainly not all bad. I have decided not to vote for him for a second term. But I'm glad I won't be inhibited by intense emotions against him any more than I was for George Bush. While I won't vote for Barack Obama again, I'm glad my emotions will permit me to think about more important issues than those that you cite and recite as you have again above. Bush and Obama were both our Presidents, for better or worse. If nothing else, both occupy an office that all Americans should respect, even if they don't have strong feelings for the person.

I think such intense emotion interferes with the ability to properly assess what is being done by this administration, and maybe more importantly what's not being done. Not everything this administration has done has been bad. But the intense and growing enmity between the Obama partisans and those of his opponents is clearly interfering with the governance of the country. Too much time is being spent on partisan politics and nowhere near enough on addressing the many increasingly critical problems facing the country. We are a country that is in a tailspin in many respects, but those in the cockpit are more interested in winning the wrestling match over the steering wheel than they are in preventing the inevitable crash.

Just think about how our Congress is currently operating. Unless I've missed a vote, in recent months any legislation sponsored by the Democrats or proposed by the President is opposed 100% by the Republicans. They can't even reach some sort of agreement on legislation that the GOP sponsored themselves only a year or so ago! There are no statesmen left, no conciliators, no negotiators. All we have are partisans, and they are growing more and more fractious and recalcitrant. Unless things change, the roles may be reversed if the GOP regains control of one or both houses of Congress. Does anyone think this is good for this country? Does anyone believe that the form of government designed by our founders is what we're seeing in 2010? My answer is a resounding NO! to both those questions.

As I said, Barack Obama will be President for another three years or so. It might be a more productive exercise to simply put Barack Obama aside to a back corner of your mind, and concentrate on really understanding what we need to demand and expect from the next President of the United States and the Congress that will form his administration. To think about and write letters such as quoted above, again and again and again doesn't accomplish a whole lot in my mind. You won't be able to change him for another three years, so why get all upset by your feelings for the man? You and I are both going to vote for someone other than Barack Obama for POTUS in 2012. I'd much rather be discussing the issues that will be facing those candidates than "listening" again to how much you disrespect the current occupant of the office of President.

Sorry for the criticism. It is intended to be constructive.


I received your lecture but want to remind you that my response to you was based on you telling everyone it was "simply wrong" to criticize this President and I still do not understand that statement.

Of course the issues are the most important and of course our congress is dysfunctional but after the last 8 years, and after a campiagn filled with more lies than I have seen in my lifetime,and I could go on again, do not tell me that it is "simply wrong" to criticize this President !

[Guest]

VK, don't shift the focus. You gave a simple example, not one you supported or proposed, just an example to show your point of priorities and how you can be both a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Your example pulled troops from Afghanistan to save the country $200 billion annually. You said,
"interpret what I've said as an example of what government can do. I'm sure you could insert any number of inefficient and ineffective government spending programs instead of the war, as well as other high priority social programs that could be funded with the savings of cutting unneeded spending."

In response to what I'd been reading on this thread about taxes, wasteful spending and priorities, I said, "It's the same thing with the involvement of the government in every aspect of our lives. Government needs to play less a role in individuals lives. I believe in freedom. I understand your example was broad and not an exact example, VK, but for the point of discussion...What is happening to Obama's war? Where is his “a stronger, smarter, more comprehensive strategy” that would build schools, hospitals, roads, and enterprise zones, addressing issues such as energy and trade. Where are those efforts?"

You response to me, quoting my statement for discussion, was condescending and evasive of any real debate. You keep crying priorities. You gave the example of the Afghan invasion. I mentioned facts. Instead of having a constructive discussion and allowing meaningful debate to take place, your response was "The reason there is so little meaningful national debate is that there is so much hatred for President Obama that it gets in the way of any constructive thinking." .

By your reasoning of respecting Obama, "It might be a more productive exercise to simply put Barack Obama aside to a back corner of your mind," and not discussing issues involving his leadership would be the same as putting other representatives in Congress in the back corner of your mind. No discussing issues they uphold or disapprove of. Just keep quite, be respectful and vote them out. That is absurb and disingenuous to the real point of discussions and learning.

I agree with Bucco, I enjoy reading your posts. I usually take something away from them. I use many things you say to study and learn on my own. But your closed minded attitude of taking any discussion about Obama off the table is not fodder for open debate and discussion or learning how to prioritize.

Sorry for the criticism. It is intended to be constructive.

[Guest]

Calling Fox a news network seems to be quite a stretch. I do think that if a network any network attacked me 24 hours a day 7 days a week with some at best luke warm investigations into the true facts I probably would attack them also. From birthers to Ayers Fox has made its sole mission the destruction of Obama 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Luckily there are people who fact check their stories and some of us get the real news. I just loved their latest "news" that the symbol for the limitation of atomic weapons
is very similar to some countries that have Islamic populations and this is another way that Obama is bowing to them. Give me a break. Ask the guy who designed it and he says its the symbol for the hydrgen atom.

[Guest]

Waynet--- Bush had ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. attacking him 24/7 for eight years. He never said a word. Have you ever listened to FOX? There are a whole lot of Democrats on it. Many have their own shows. How many Republicans are on the other channels, much less have their own shows?

[Guest]

Waynet--- Bush had ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. attacking him 24/7 for eight years. He never said a word. Have you ever listened to FOX? There are a whole lot of Democrats on it. Many have their own shows. How many Republicans are on the other channels, much less have their own shows?

Sally Jo, you took the words from my mouth. Poor Obama. Only one TV station that hasn't drank his Kool Aid. The poor thing.

I say suck it up and be a man. You guys cried for 8 years with the media on your side. You win the election and your still crying.

[Guest]

Sally Jo,I dont think we watch the same Fox. Democrats???Who???As for Bush he had an easy road for the first 4 years of his Presidency. It was only when he began lying to the public,taking away our rights outing CIA agents and on and on that the press really got on him. And one major difference between those networks and Fox. The other networks did some investigative reporting before issuing the story. Fox network lies plain and simple. In my last post I gave you the example of the atomic ban symbol as an example of their just stupid reporting. How about the idiot who went into the Acorn offices and then EDITED the film to make them look bad. Isn't it the same fool who illegally broke into a senators office? He was all over Fox a hero.

[Guest]

Bucco, your intense disrespect for Barack Obama has continued unabated since pretty early in his campaign. But he was elected and he will be our President at least until January 20, 2012. That's just a simple fact.

I voted for George Bush for his first term, but as his administration progressed I grew to dislike his political style, the people he surrounded himself with, as well as his abandonment of things he promised while campaigning. I don't think my feelings were quite as intense as yours are for Obama and I'm glad they weren't. I made the decision not to vote for a second Bush term about halfway thru his first. But then I tried to spend my time trying to understand the issues and listening to those that were campaigning to replace him.

I'm glad I did. As you know, my consideration lead me to vote for Barack Obama. I thought he was the best candidate for President at the time I entered the voting booth. My confidence and certainty with my decision was far from 100%, but I had only one choice.

I haven't been at all happy with all that President Obama has done so far, but it's certainly not all bad. I have decided not to vote for him for a second term. But I'm glad I won't be inhibited by intense emotions against him any more than I was for George Bush. While I won't vote for Barack Obama again, I'm glad my emotions will permit me to think about more important issues than those that you cite and recite as you have again above. Bush and Obama were both our Presidents, for better or worse. If nothing else, both occupy an office that all Americans should respect, even if they don't have strong feelings for the person.

I think such intense emotion interferes with the ability to properly assess what is being done by this administration, and maybe more importantly what's not being done. Not everything this administration has done has been bad. But the intense and growing enmity between the Obama partisans and those of his opponents is clearly interfering with the governance of the country. Too much time is being spent on partisan politics and nowhere near enough on addressing the many increasingly critical problems facing the country. We are a country that is in a tailspin in many respects, but those in the cockpit are more interested in winning the wrestling match over the steering wheel than they are in preventing the inevitable crash.

Just think about how our Congress is currently operating. Unless I've missed a vote, in recent months any legislation sponsored by the Democrats or proposed by the President is opposed 100% by the Republicans. They can't even reach some sort of agreement on legislation that the GOP sponsored themselves only a year or so ago! There are no statesmen left, no conciliators, no negotiators. All we have are partisans, and they are growing more and more fractious and recalcitrant. Unless things change, the roles may be reversed if the GOP regains control of one or both houses of Congress. Does anyone think this is good for this country? Does anyone believe that the form of government designed by our founders is what we're seeing in 2010? My answer is a resounding NO! to both those questions.

As I said, Barack Obama will be President for another three years or so. It might be a more productive exercise to simply put Barack Obama aside to a back corner of your mind, and concentrate on really understanding what we need to demand and expect from the next President of the United States and the Congress that will form his administration. To think about and write letters such as quoted above, again and again and again doesn't accomplish a whole lot in my mind. You won't be able to change him for another three years, so why get all upset by your feelings for the man? You and I are both going to vote for someone other than Barack Obama for POTUS in 2012. I'd much rather be discussing the issues that will be facing those candidates than "listening" again to how much you disrespect the current occupant of the office of President.

Sorry for the criticism. It is intended to be constructive.

Perhaps you should send this to the current POTUS. It seems that he is the one who does not respect the office.

As leader, he should do no less than listen to what people have to say. If nothing more, that is simple courtesy. He is supposed to be a President, not a dictator of what he wants and those he hand picks want. Prime example....his visit to NASA.

[Guest]

I think the media by overexposing Obama with their love for him have inadvertently shown him for the snake oil salesmen that he is. A president who is in constant campaign mode and always speaks down to those that question him is no leader. no-matter how hard the MSM try to show-boat him I no longer care to see him or take him seriously and I believe many are feeling this way both at home and abroad.

[Guest]

Waynet--- For starters, Shepard Smith has two hours a day, on FOX. Greta VanSustern has an hour each night. Geraldo Rivera has an hour show, once a week. These people are not republicans. The following are on regularly: Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Lamont Hill and Al Sharpton. The list goes on and on.
Valerie Plame was outed by Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald knew this before he even started his investigation. It didn't seem to bother him one little bit to waste time and money to try and nail somebody for something. Furthermore, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether she was even a covert agent, at the time. the one thing we do know is that her husband didn't like Bush.
What rights have you lost? Do you really think agents are listening in to your phone calls?
As far as ACORN goes I think they made themselves look bad. How many cases of voter fraud have they been accused and convicted of? This has happened for years. Long before they were dumb enough to say what they did on tape.

[Guest]

Yup,fair and balanced thats Fox. Shep Smith is good. He seems to be an honest broadcaster. But Greta not a Republican and the rest on your list are just used for soundbites maybe on for 3 minute segments.Take those 3 minute segments multiply by 5 if they are all on in one day and that makes 15 minutes. The other 23 hours and 45 minutes are used to bash Obama. That to me is not really fair and balanced. By the way does Fox do anything else besides bash Obama and the liberal left?

[Guest]

Yup,fair and balanced thats Fox. Shep Smith is good. He seems to be an honest broadcaster. But Greta not a Republican and the rest on your list are just used for soundbites maybe on for 3 minute segments.Take those 3 minute segments multiply by 5 if they are all on in one day and that makes 15 minutes. The other 23 hours and 45 minutes are used to bash Obama. That to me is not really fair and balanced. By the way does Fox do anything else besides bash Obama and the liberal left?

Yes, they do. If you call what Obama & the liberal left is trying to do to America, "bashing" so be it. They do it and Fox reports it. Seems fair to me.

[Guest]

Yup,fair and balanced thats Fox. Shep Smith is good. He seems to be an honest broadcaster. But Greta not a Republican and the rest on your list are just used for soundbites maybe on for 3 minute segments.Take those 3 minute segments multiply by 5 if they are all on in one day and that makes 15 minutes. The other 23 hours and 45 minutes are used to bash Obama. That to me is not really fair and balanced. By the way does Fox do anything else besides bash Obama and the liberal left?

I read your posts and it scares me because I think you said you were a schoolteacher and had/have access to young minds.

You not only are way off ANY course, you dont even have a clue. I am not defending Fox with this statement in anyway...I happen to watch them all at times and have no favorites on any channel.

You simply restate a "wivestale" begun by radicals. There are news shows and commenatators on each and every cable show that I am aware of. Each of those commentators (such as Keith Olbmermann or Rachel Maddow) have an obvious leaning. I think to anyone who watches such shows you can determine what leaning that is and decide whether to watch or not. Given time, which I surely will not give to this matter, I can find opinions on both sides either smashing or defending all the networks and their commentators.

What is really disarming about your posts on this subject is your TOTAL lack of knowledge of the subject. Your posts are almost verbatim from places like MOVEON or the like. Instead of discussing poor news coverage on all networks, which is the case and you would think would be something an educator would be aware of, you sound like an active member of the DNC. There is nothing wrong with that either but at least identify yourself that way !

Before you comment on my lack of respect for President Obama, let me tell you that I was commenting on here about the same issues regarding him BEFORE he was even the candidate and before he was even a frontrunner for the Democratic nod. I might add that many who come on here now and express admiration for him were on here "spanking" him pretty good before he beat out Clinton for the nod.

[Guest]

Bucco,exactly what are you implying?I'm off any course?I don't have a clue?My total lack of knowledge? Because i don't agree with you and a few others on this site I have no knowledge. I am in a discussion concerning Fox news and you come up with this personal attack.Where am I off course? Where do I display no knowledge? Where dont I have a clue? Some of you are good at attacking me personally but can't seem to respond to any issues I bring up. If you think Fox is fair and balanced good for you but I strongly disagree. If you think Obama is bad for the country I disagree. If you think the repubs are going to change anything if they are elected I disagree. If you think tea partiers are the answer I disagree. If you thinkthat 41 repubs have already said they will vote in a block to stop any debate on Wall St.changes is a good thing I disagree. Yes right now I am a democrat,I think they give us the best chance right now. I have also been a registered repub until Bush and I have been a independent. And finally your comment about my teaching was way out of line and uncalled for. Mock my politics but my personal life is none of your business.You have no idea what or how I taught.

[Guest]

VK, don't shift the focus....your closed minded attitude of taking any discussion about Obama off the table is not fodder for open debate and discussion or learning how to prioritize...

I'm not trying to shoft the focus away from President Obama. I've already said that I believe he's done some good things and some bad, but not enough to earn my vote for his re-election for a second term.

More than anything, if I could convince folks to simply forget their hatred or disrespect for Barack Obama, or whatever you want to call it, in favor of a study of the issues, the possible solutions, and which elected legislators and/or candidates are for the ones that make the most sense to us, I'd feel I contributed something to the debate.

I only say forget about Obama because he's going to be the POTUS for the better part of another three years regardless of how we feel about him. He doesn't vote on anything, and in fact the power of his bully pulpit seems pretty feeble. Like many recent Presidents before him, he is not inclined to use his veto to influence anything. So basically what I'm saying is that other than being a news item every day, he doesn't influence much of anything--domestically at least. I'll admit that he does have some power in exercising foreign relations and as commander-in-chief of the military.

So why do people spend so much time researching news and statements to make him look bad, and seemingly spend most of their time demonstrating their dislike, disrespect or even hatred for the man? It's a waste of time in my opinion.

[Guest]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I may have just figured something out here VK. Not being insulting, jabbing, taunting or anything like that. Seriously, you think economically on most things political. Some others, like me, don't use that side of the brain as eloquently as you. You know the right brain, left brain theory. Like what you just said about Obama not making many decisions domestically at least. See, to me, instantly when I read that I thought of his recent court nominees, and other issues which, on the surface are more social than economic. Not a bad thing. Just an observation.

[Guest]

...If you think Fox is fair and balanced good for you but I strongly disagree. If you think Obama is (totally) bad for the country I disagree. If you think the repubs are going to change anything if they are elected I disagree. If you think tea partiers are the answer I disagree. If you think that 41 repubs have already said they will vote in a block to stop any debate on Wall St.changes is a good thing I disagree....

Wayne, I agree with all your disagreements. All I can suggest is that we all do the best we can to understand the issues, the alternatives our elected representatives have to address those issues, and who the best people might be to represent us that we will vote for in 2010 and 2012. To argue with one another on this kind of stuff is a complete waste of time, regardless of which side of the argument one is on.

[Guest]

To VK and Wayne,...

Since you too have bonded on these two issues, I must assume that I am the dumb one.

VK says it is "simply wrong" to criticize THIS President but I can only assume your criticism of past is fine...ok....that is how you feel. You feel that the President cannot or will not influence domestic affairs and I say that you already know that is hogwash because he has/will and continues to be knee deep in domestic affairs. I can understand a discussion of the issues for sure, but to approach it with an attitude of ignoring the President of the United States because he has no influence on domestic affairs and it is "simply wrong" to ever criticize him, to ME...is just plain ludicrious !

VK says that we have a dysfunctional congress and I agree, but he implies it just happend and is always talking about the GOP for the last year but I dare to remind you that the dysfunction did not begin with the election of this President unless you ignore the two years prior.

WAYNE and I assume VK feel it just peachy keen to attack one news network when both are intelligent enough to understand that bias is apparent on ALL networks and this constant harrangue on Fox which even extends to the WH is simply a bunch of partisan whining and nothing more.

If you feel I attacked you personally Wayne, I apologize...nothing was meant to be personal...you keep mentioning issues you brought up that nobody responded to and my search shows none except those that you ignored when shown to be incorrect, but that is ok also.

I realize that both of you and others think my thoughts are totally partisan and can even understand why. I, unlike others, do not feel it necessary to give you my life story or voting history to somehow validate myself for you.
I can only tell you that since this board has been in my vision, the subject matter was pretty much about this current President or his opponents in either the primary or the general election. If you feel comfy putting me into some catagory that is fine....it sure wont be true, but you can do that.

I just cannot believe how you can tell folks they are WRONG to criticize our President and to attack one single network.

As I said, you two claim insight and intelligence and thus I must be the dumb guy and will just shut up. To me, you both think this President is something special and I do not and that is the thrust of our differences. I think he is a distinct and real danger to this country and to tell folks on here that he has or will not have any influence on domestic policy is simply skirting the issue in my opinion ~!

[Guest]

...VK says that we have a dysfunctional congress and I agree, but he implies it just happened and is always talking about the GOP for the last year but I dare to remind you that the dysfunction did not begin with the election of this President unless you ignore the two years prior.
I'm a little lost by this statement, Bucco. Let me be crystal clear. Governance from our Congress has been heavily influenced by partisan bickering and increasing influence of special interest money for a couple of decades. The partisanship was fueled to white hot levels by the unsuccessful GOP attempt to impeach Bill Clinton. From that point forward, about the last decade or so, the two parties couldn't agree on where the sun comes up, let alone any important legislation to address important national issues. During that time control of the Congress has flip-flopped between the GOP and the Democrats, as has the White House.

I assert that our government has been dysfunctional for at least a decade. That's a criticism of both parties and both Presidents who have been in office during that period.
...to approach it with an attitude of ignoring the President of the United States because he has no influence on domestic affairs and it is "simply wrong" to ever criticize him, to ME...is just plain ludicrious !...OK, we disagree.
....I just cannot believe how you can..attack one single network.I can't recall "attacking" Fox News. I even watch some shows it broadcasts to get the more conservative point-of-view. But do I think it is "fair and balanced" reporting of news and opinion? Absolutely not.

[Guest]

I'm a little lost by this statement, Bucco. Let me be crystal clear. Governance from our Congress has been heavily influenced by partisan bickering and increasing influence of special interest money for a couple of decades. The partisanship was fueled to white hot levels by the unsuccessful GOP attempt to impeach Bill Clinton. From that point forward, about the last decade or so, the two parties couldn't agree on where the sun comes up, let alone any important legislation to address important national issues. During that time control of the Congress has flip-flopped between the GOP and the Democrats, as has the White House.

I assert that our government has been dysfunctional for at least a decade. That's a criticism of both parties and both Presidents who have been in office during that period.
OK, we disagree.
I can't recall "attacking" Fox News. I even watch some shows it broadcasts to get the more conservative point-of-view. But do I think it is "fair and balanced" reporting of news and opinion? Absolutely not.

1. Please explain to me, the dumb guy, how a President who is being lauded and lauds himsself for passing the single greatest piece of domestic legislation which is called the health care bill, and who as your post in another thread talks about to regulate the banking industry, and who signed into law a "stimulus" bill that was pretty much all social programs, who has on his plate a number of sweeping social programs and who talks consistently about social programs will have NO influence on domestic affairs ?

2. You say Fox is not fair and balanced...I will accept that as your opinion but that is the only network that you and others single out so please share with us what network is fair and balanced ? I must add that I also visit other networks to see different views but do not hear much carping about MSNBC for example and many of their shows have a bias !

[Guest]

OMG No influence on domestic affairs? LOL.

Bucco has a good point. Are the other cable channels fair and balanced?

MSNBC - Is not that the network who on April 15, 2009 coined the word "**********" and spent the whole day,among others, being vulgar to the tea partiers and cracking juvenile jokes all day whenever the screen showed the partiers?

This is the only president that acts like a gangster thug when he thinks someone isn't worshiping him. He has all the networks in his back pocket yet cries like a baby when Fox tells the news straight.
President Bush has more class then this gangster will ever have. He is a laughing stock around the world.

[Guest]

...please share with us what network is fair and balanced ?...Maybe none of them. I think the PBS Newshour tries very hard to be balanced. I also think Meet The Press does a good job of aggressively interviewing guests from varying political stripes. But no other programs or channels leap to mind as ones that can be counted on to present totally balanced news reporting.

But we weren't talking about anything other than Fox News, were we? I simply said that I didn't think that media outlet was fair and balanced. I still don't.

But that doesn't mean I don't watch the news on broadcast or cable TV. It's just that one has to be careful to seek out news reports from a couple of sources to create your own "fair and balanced" opinion.
1. Please explain to me...how a President who is being lauded and lauds himself for passing the single greatest piece of domestic legislation which is called the health care bill, and who as your post in another thread talks about to regulate the banking industry, and who signed into law a "stimulus" bill that was pretty much all social programs, who has on his plate a number of sweeping social programs and who talks consistently about social programs will have NO influence on domestic affairs ?

On second thought, maybe you're right, Bucco. The POTUS does have some power to set the legislative agenda. Let's see what he's done...
Implementing the initial financial stimulus bill passed at the end of the Bush administration. Personally, there area lot of the things done with the money that I'd have done differently, but the outcome has been pretty good. The U.S. economy is recovering at a faster rate than the rest of the world that was affected by the financial crisis. That's undeniable. I don't like the play selection, but we seem to be ahead in the score.
The stimulus legislation passed early on Obama's watch. I'd have the same criticism times about two. Lots and lots of things I'd have done differently. But again, we seem to be winning the game. That was the objective, wasn't it?
Auto bailout. The effect of this one still remains to be seen. The government gave egregiously too much to the UAW at the expense of legitimate secured lenders and that was offensive to me. GM may make it. I see no way that Chrysler exists in a few years. I'd have saved GM and let Chrysler disappear.
Bank bailout. The country was teetering on a financial collapse that would have been deeper than the Great Depression. We'd have 25% unemployment now had nothing been done. There almost was no completely fair solution. He let some banks fail that I might have tried to save, and saved others that I might have permitted to die or at least breakup and downsize. But overall, the banks were saved and became fundamental to the economic recovery. Not bad.
Healthcare reform. The POTUS got what he wanted--and what U.S. Presidents for the last 100 years have tried to get--universal healthcare for all Americans. Was the bill a Rube Goldberg concoction of terms to satisfy every politician, constituency and special interest group you can imagine? You betcha' Did it "bend the cost curve"? No way, not after all the stuff that Congress negotiated in and out, for themselves as well as their special interest buddies. But I blame the Congress a whole lot more than Obama. He got what he wanted and that was impressive--something we've been needing for a century.
Fiscal management of the country. He's been a dismal failure. Not much more to be said. In that I think that this is the most important issue facing the country, his performance fiscally has been enough for me to vote for someone else in 2012.
Financial regulatory reform. I hope he sticks to his guns and forces this bill thru quickly, before all the special interest groups get a chance to get changes made that would gut the new regulations. As a retired banker, I know what's required. I hope he streamrolls it thru.
Foreign relations. Worlds better than his predecessor. Everyone doesn't have to agree with everything that's been accomplished or every decision made. But the U.S. is in a heckuva lot better position to achieve our strategic objectives now than we were a couple years ago. The improved relations with Russia will benefit us greatly with some of our other objectives (read that Iran). I think the effort to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons is lost and those in authority know that. The best we can expect now is to contain them and try to keep them, as the tenth nuclear state, under control. And work to prevent a long list of other countries from trying to get nukes as well.

Military affairs. He's turned out to be a lot better commander-in-chief than I expected. Personally, I think continuing our efforts in Afghanistan is like peeing down a rathole. It won't surprise me if our role there is substantially changed by the time the 2012 election is rolls around.

So, Bucco, maybe I spoke too fast. Maybe President Obama does have a greater influence on domestic affairs than I said. But maybe that's OK. On a lot of stuff, he's done a pretty good job. So if you and others want to keep whacking away at all the stuff that causes you to disrespect Barack Obama--or even hate him--have at it. You won't find me getting involved in his defense. There are other things I'll be thinking about.

[Guest]

VK--- Actually, Bill Clinton was impeached. He was not removed from office, but he was impeached.

[Guest]

Foreign relations. Worlds better than his predecessor. Everyone doesn't have to agree with everything that's been accomplished or every decision made. But the U.S. is in a heckuva lot better position to achieve our strategic objectives now than we were a couple years ago. The improved relations with Russia will benefit us greatly with some of our other objectives (read that Iran). I think the effort to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons is lost and those in authority know that. The best we can expect now is to contain them and try to keep them, as the tenth nuclear state, under control. And work to prevent a long list of other countries from trying to get nukes as well.


It is too early for foreign relation grades but recent ratings of this regime are not very good. Seems Obama likes to bow to our enemies and snub our friends. This could be a time bomb.
Personally I think he is groaping around aimlessly and has no idea what he is doing.

[Guest]

VK says...

"Healthcare reform. The POTUS got what he wanted--and what U.S. Presidents for the last 100 years have tried to get--universal healthcare for all Americans. Was the bill a Rube Goldberg concoction of terms to satisfy every politician, constituency and special interest group you can imagine? You betcha' Did it "bend the cost curve"? No way, not after all the stuff that Congress negotiated in and out, for themselves as well as their special interest buddies. But I blame the Congress a whole lot more than Obama. He got what he wanted and that was impressive--something we've been needing for a century.

It is incredible to me that you would compliment a man who ran for President based on no more politics in bills..no more pork in bills....bi partisan all the way....open and candid and in the SAME sentence say "Was the bill a Rube Goldberg concoction of terms to satisfy every politician, constituency and special interest group you can imagine? You betcha' Did it "bend the cost curve"? No way, not after all the stuff that Congress negotiated in and out, for themselves as well as their special interest buddies.

HOWEVER you are impressed ! And then you say that this "Rube Goldberg concoction" is "something we've been needing for a century".

I am suspecting VK that you are as left leaning in every way possible but very glib about it !!

I just want to add that you also use the word HATE.....I have never used that term EVER. I dont recall anyone who opposed this President every using that word, but it seems that you and others find anyones opposition to this President as hate...not opposed to his idealogy but hate....not against his policies but hate.

I dont recall myself or anyone else on here ever even talking about this President in a personal manner.....yet you and others find these oppositions as HATE.

I dont understand that !

[Guest]

Does anyone else, or is it just me, see the irony in applauding the use of the "Rube Goldberg conconction" as a means to pass healthcare reform? The mouse trap comparison of using an elaborate set of gears, cranks, schemes and devices to lead the unknowing "mouse" into a trap set with cheese.
At first everyone cooperates to build the Rube Goldberg-like mouse trap. After the contrapsion is built, the object is then used to manuever others and trap all of your opponents with the bait.
That's right, we are all caught in "the cheese wheel" with the President's Rube Goldberg conconction of Healthcare Reform.

[Guest]

BK. Here is a link to PajamasMedia. Do not know if you have to sign up for viewing but it would be worth your time to do.

There are 7 reasons (two pages)

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/how-could-we-be-so-stupid-let-us-count-the-ways/

[Guest]

Most Democrats are sincere and for many years their party was reasonable.

The Democrat party has now been taken over by the "Progressive Movement" which has been successful in convincing Democrats that anything Republican is wrong.
This movement also initiated ,many years ago, the approach of buying votes by using welfare programs that squelch personal initiatives needed for self reliance.

Democrats who are interestd in finding out what is happening to their party should research the Progressive Movement. You will not find out about it by reading The New York Times or watching network news.