Originally Posted by RichieLion

Big news today. The Dow is up highest levels in 4 years!........wow!!!

I'm sure all the people who've given up on finding appropriate employment, and the record number of people on the public dole are quite exited about this.

No, they're not, of course. But the folks with the bulging stock portfolios are feeling pretty swell about now. They're getting more and more wealthy and they've got both lobbyists and paid members of Congress in Washington who have promised not to change the book of sweet tax policy that would upset their apple cart. Remember, the companies themselves also benefit from a burgeoning stock market. To the extent their investments in the employee pension funds increase, that 's even more cash available for executive bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

The unemployed? The increasing deficit? The tens of millions with no health insurance? Are these issues that the wealthiest, the investor class, the lobbyists, the paid members of Congress, worry about? Surely you jest.

My whole thread here started with a couple of questions that not one single poster here has made any attempt to answer in three pages of posting and re-posting ideological sound bites. One question was ... is the current system of tax policy fair?

So, is it?

By the way, and I know you'll have some sort of response on this one Richie...if the stock market is doing gang busters well and is a reflection of the health of our economy, it seems like the economic policies of the Obama administration have worked pretty well since they took over from George Bush. Anything wrong with that simple logic?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

No, they're not, of course. But the folks with the bulging stock portfolios are feeling pretty swell about now. They're getting more and more wealthy and they've got both lobbyists and paid members of Congress in Washington who have promised not to change the book of sweet tax policy that would upset their apple cart. Remember, the companies themselves also benefit from a burgeoning stock market. To the extent their investments in the employee pension funds increase, that 's even more cash available for executive bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

The unemployed? The increasing deficit? The tens of millions with no health insurance? Are these issues that the wealthiest, the investor class, the lobbyists, the paid members of Congress, worry about? Surely you jest.

My whole thread here started with a couple of questions that not one single poster here has made any attempt to answer in three pages of posting and re-posting ideological sound bites. One question was ... is the current system of tax policy fair?

So, is it?

By the way, and I know you'll have some sort of response on this one Richie...if the stock market is doing gang busters well and is a reflection of the health of our economy, it seems like the economic policies of the Obama administration have worked pretty well since they took over from George Bush. Anything wrong with that simple logic?

Hope I can interrupt a bit....

Is the current tax code fair ? NO...but not restricted to those items that you, the media and the WH seem to feel that it is. We are heading for mucho serious problems with the language being used and constant bombardment of rich versus poor..nothing good can come from that.

I dont think Obama had much if anything to do with stocks going up...that is not a criticism but you asked. Most ups and downs, IF stemming from political is pretty much legislation. This country does not do that any longer, ie. budget or much of anything.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...I dont think Obama had much if anything to do with stocks going up...

If you truly believe that the economic policies of political administrations have little or no effect on the health of the economy and one of it's key measures, the value of the equity of publicly owned companies, then there's not much purpose in continuing much debate here on subjects having to do with economic decisions made in Washington.

If a POTUS has little or no effect on the good things that happen economically, then it seems appropriate that he not be blamed for the bad things that happen either.

If we want to write off any effect that the policies of the Obama administration have had on economic recovery, that's OK with me. I don't agree, but for the purpose of this forum, it might help frame the discussion.

That being the case, why don't we quit blaming Obama for the high unemployment rate, for the decline in tax revenues needed to fund the government, for the skyrocketing imbalance of payments, and for other economic things that a POTUS often gets tagged with.

All that's OK with me. Don't give the POTUS any credit for good things that happen. But don't blame him for things that don't go so well economically either. That surely will simplify this forum.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

No, they're not, of course. But the folks with the bulging stock portfolios are feeling pretty swell about now. They're getting more and more wealthy and they've got both lobbyists and paid members of Congress in Washington who have promised not to change the book of sweet tax policy that would upset their apple cart. Remember, the companies themselves also benefit from a burgeoning stock market. To the extent their investments in the employee pension funds increase, that 's even more cash available for executive bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

The unemployed? The increasing deficit? The tens of millions with no health insurance? Are these issues that the wealthiest, the investor class, the lobbyists, the paid members of Congress, worry about? Surely you jest.

My whole thread here started with a couple of questions that not one single poster here has made any attempt to answer in three pages of posting and re-posting ideological sound bites. One question was ... is the current system of tax policy fair?

So, is it?

By the way, and I know you'll have some sort of response on this one Richie...if the stock market is doing gang busters well and is a reflection of the health of our economy, it seems like the economic policies of the Obama administration have worked pretty well since they took over from George Bush. Anything wrong with that simple logic?

I'm not at all sure where you stand on all you've said.

The stock market going up isn't bad for me. I've retired and my worth and security is enhanced by rising stock prices, generally.

But I don't view the world selfishly. I think of my children and the others of their generation who are struggling to get by in a world of increasing prices and taxes, coupled with deflating wages and careers and incalculable national debt, in a world devoid of the dreams of future security, as we had.

Do I think Obama has done well for my progeny? I think he's done miserably.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

...Do I think Obama has done well for my progeny? I think he's done miserably.

I'm not defending Obama. I'm not going to vote for him in November.

You can criticize the POTUS for being a lousy political leader, a poor communicator with the public so as to frame their understanding of the issues. That's fair and in my opinion accurate. But again I'll point out that the POTUS hasn't negotiated or compromised or passed one single bill that might affect your progeny. But Congress has. The same Congress that is so split ideologically that they can hardly agree on anything. A Congress who spends more time on trying to get re-elected or coming up with arcane rules and procedures to throw sand in the gears of anything their political opponents want than actually representing their constituents.

That always leaves me wondering why all the bitterness, vitriol and hatred directed against the POTUS, who has had little or no effect on the legislative process? (Other than not vetoing some bills that almost everyone knows are fatally defective.)

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

If you truly believe that the economic policies of political administrations have little or no effect on the health of the economy and one of it's key measures, the value of the equity of publicly owned companies, then there's not much purpose in continuing much debate here on subjects having to do with economic decisions made in Washington.

If a POTUS has little or no effect on the good things that happen economically, then it seems appropriate that he not be blamed for the bad things that happen either.

If we want to write off any effect that the policies of the Obama administration have had on economic recovery, that's OK with me. I don't agree, but for the purpose of this forum, it might help frame the discussion.

That being the case, why don't we quit blaming Obama for the high unemployment rate, for the decline in tax revenues needed to fund the government, for the skyrocketing imbalance of payments, and for other economic things that a POTUS often gets tagged with.

All that's OK with me. Don't give the POTUS any credit for good things that happen. But don't blame him for things that don't go so well economically either. That surely will simplify this forum.

I have never ever blamed a president for the market nor lauded one for success. We have 8% unemployment and of course you and most will blame Bush for that UNTIL it lowers....we have 50% of people who pay NO taxes, we have no US budget for three years.....you can laud him all the way...I know you blame all those bad Republicans for all of that, and they certainly need to shoulder a lot of the blame but you even make light of the healthcare bill while saying it was a mess but poor Obama just didnt know...well, he is president...he is supposed to know...and now poor Obama tried but even thought he lied, and cheated to get the bill passed all those poor folks who will suffer if it is overturned should never get angry at him.....no, lets give him yet another pass and off he goes.

Sorry.....while I have tried to be fair with him, these love affairs for him are going to come back to bite all of us. He can get a pass from you, but the direction he wants to take this country and the method he uses to get there is something that I do not and cannot condone. He is not honest...not at all and I suppose we just have to pay the circumstances in the future.

I sure do not envy those who will need to live with what he is doing.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm not defending Obama. I'm not going to vote for him in November.

You can criticize the POTUS for being a lousy political leader, a poor communicator with the public so as to frame their understanding of the issues. That's fair and in my opinion accurate. But again I'll point out that the POTUS hasn't negotiated or compromised or passed one single bill that might affect your progeny. But Congress has. The same Congress that is so split ideologically that they can hardly agree on anything. A Congress who spends more time on trying to get re-elected or coming up with arcane rules and procedures to throw sand in the gears of anything their political opponents want than actually representing their constituents.

That always leaves me wondering why all the bitterness, vitriol and hatred directed against the POTUS, who has had little or no effect on the legislative process? (Other than not vetoing some bills that almost everyone knows are fatally defective.)

"That always leaves me wondering why all the bitterness, vitriol and hatred directed against the POTUS, who has had little or no effect on the legislative process?"

Because as President of the United States he has lied. Because, and on this you clearly give him a break, because of him totally he has put many people on the line to not have insurance if the court overturns it without some kind of remedy for them...and he did it by lying, coercing and IGNORING what he promised to do relative to health care costs.

Because as leader of the country his words are meant to be political instead of statesman like. He has said so many things over the first three years that CAUSED problems instead of solving them.

I have always thought he was deceitful as you know from my posts in 2008 and reading today about how he even lied in his autobiography (he DID lie you see....other writers have used a composite although never saw it in an autobiography and never straight about it until caught) I feel a bit justified.

That is my short answer. If you feel so strongly about how well he has done why not vote for him ?

AS far as congress, that is accurate EXCEPT FOR TWO years he could have done anything he wanted.....he could have insured that the Senate passed a budget...he could have made sure the country had a public open debate on the budget....he could have don so much but he doesnt and you guys just keep giving him a pass.

I promise my last mention of the 8 BILLION dollars he is spending of our money for HIS political gain, but please allow me to add that attitude of arrogance to the list.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

No, they're not, of course. But the folks with the bulging stock portfolios are feeling pretty swell about now. They're getting more and more wealthy and they've got both lobbyists and paid members of Congress in Washington who have promised not to change the book of sweet tax policy that would upset their apple cart. Remember, the companies themselves also benefit from a burgeoning stock market. To the extent their investments in the employee pension funds increase, that 's even more cash available for executive bonuses and dividends to shareholders.

The unemployed? The increasing deficit? The tens of millions with no health insurance? Are these issues that the wealthiest, the investor class, the lobbyists, the paid members of Congress, worry about? Surely you jest.

My whole thread here started with a couple of questions that not one single poster here has made any attempt to answer in three pages of posting and re-posting ideological sound bites. One question was ... is the current system of tax policy fair?

So, is it?

By the way, and I know you'll have some sort of response on this one Richie...if the stock market is doing gang busters well and is a reflection of the health of our economy, it seems like the economic policies of the Obama administration have worked pretty well since they took over from George Bush. Anything wrong with that simple logic?

VK, In starting this thread you asserted that Apple had paid only 9.8% in taxes on their profits in 2011. In post 15, I showed where you were incorrect. Apple paid 24% in taxes on their profits. I hope this starts to address your question on the 'fairness' of taxes. I also showed why US multinationals are not creating jobs in this country - our system of taxing again profits made in other countries if they bring these profits back to the USA.

Unless and until we address this double taxation system, multinationals will continue to have large sums of money outside the US that can be put to use in expanding in a much more financially responsible manner there than they can here.

Arrogance and lying? President Obama does not have arrogance at all. I believe he is honest and a genuine good person.

However - for arrogance and lying - George W. "Junior" Bush was the overall champion.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Arrogance and lying? President Obama does not have arrogance at all. I believe he is honest and a genuine good person.

However - for arrogance and lying - George W. "Junior" Bush was the overall champion.

Drive-by commentary.

as long as the current tax code allows only half the eligible tax payers to actually pay taxes, it is not fair. The code is dated and needs to be brought into the 21st century and address the current needs of the country.

That would mean upsetting those who currently enjoy tax free benefit, which in turn means an upset voting block, which means true to form to date, nothing will change and continue to remain unfair.

As far as measuring Obama against when "things" go good or go bad, I prefer to measure him against the promises he made. How is he doing against that which he promised the masses to get elected? The last tally I saw indicated 35% promises kept. One would not keep a job in the private sector for very long with that number.

I also look for Obama (or who ever else is POTUS) to create initiatives that provide for this countries future and well being. For example, like his predecessors Obama has failed to deliver on the basics of energy independence. He has not created any emphasis or programs to move the USA away from foreign oil. He has not created any emphasis or programs for alternative energy sources.

Raising the CAFE regulations to 35 miles per gallon does not do it. The potential reduced consumption will only be offset by volume in the future as the population grows.

To push and pass a land mark health care program with cost impacts on the future that are not understood leaves the majority of us who were against it with more concerns than before the new law was passed. There is no drive by Obama or the lawmakers who passed the bill to understand, state the impacts and how it will be paid for.

The real issue is to bring "change" as promised to some of these things requires stepping on political toes whether elected or constituents.

As long as it remains business as usual in Washington, there will be no real change to the things that matter...like fair taxation...health care costs...energy independence....to name a few.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

as long as the current tax code allows only half the eligible tax payers to actually pay taxes, it is not fair. The code is dated and needs to be brought into the 21st century and address the current needs of the country.

That would mean upsetting those who currently enjoy tax free benefit, which in turn means an upset voting block, which means true to form to date, nothing will change and continue to remain unfair.

As far as measuring Obama against when "things" go good or go bad, I prefer to measure him against the promises he made. How is he doing against that which he promised the masses to get elected? The last tally I saw indicated 35% promises kept. One would not keep a job in the private sector for very long with that number.

I also look for Obama (or who ever else is POTUS) to create initiatives that provide for this countries future and well being. For example, like his predecessors Obama has failed to deliver on the basics of energy independence. He has not created any emphasis or programs to move the USA away from foreign oil. He has not created any emphasis or programs for alternative energy sources.

Raising the CAFE regulations to 35 miles per gallon does not do it. The potential reduced consumption will only be offset by volume in the future as the population grows.

To push and pass a land mark health care program with cost impacts on the future that are not understood leaves the majority of us who were against it with more concerns than before the new law was passed. There is no drive by Obama or the lawmakers who passed the bill to understand, state the impacts and how it will be paid for.

The real issue is to bring "change" as promised to some of these things requires stepping on political toes whether elected or constituents.

As long as it remains business as usual in Washington, there will be no real change to the things that matter...like fair taxation...health care costs...energy independence....to name a few.

btk

According to the Pulitzer Prize winning Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact, President Obama's promises kept are 35% plus 27% in the works, which comes to 62% which is good considering the do-nothing congress he has to work with. Another 11% were compromises, 12% are stalled and 13% were broken.

The biggest promises were killing Bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq, and passing the health care bill - done, done, and done.


PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

Sounds pretty successful to me, considering the do-nothing Congress.

I wonder what Junior Bush's record was?

Originally Posted by buggyone

Sounds pretty successful to me, considering the do-nothing Congress.

I wonder what Junior Bush's record was?

Bush's record was pretty good if his promises were; get US into two unfunded wars, pass unpaid for Medicare prescription drug plan, give tax cuts costing the treasury 4.4 trillion, lose 4.4 million jobs, and take the economy right to the brink of destruction with fewer regulations. And BTW, take a surplus and turn it into a deficit. Done, done, done, done, done, done and done.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Bush's record was pretty good if his promises were; get US into two unfunded wars, pass unpaid for Medicare prescription drug plan, give tax cuts costing the treasury 4.4 trillion, lose 4.4 million jobs, and take the economy right to the brink of destruction with fewer regulations. And BTW, take a surplus and turn it into a deficit. Done, done, done, done, done, done and done.

OK, OK, these are the facts, but did you have to make it sound so negative? There are some folks here who thought Mr. W Bush was a nice guy who's now getting a bad rap, and suffering by inappropriate comparison to Mr Obama. I'm not sure it's polite to keep reminding them of things they are determined to minimize or ignore. I'm sure you've read their many posts and it's obvious how sensitive they are about this. Now somebody's even asked about numerically comparing Presidents' kept promises. Talk about deliberately hurting peoples' feelings!!